you're a tease, that's already established. :)
but i'm plowing through badiou which has been more tedious than normal since i tend to read outside and it's been blasted, suffocatingly hot.
but i have to ask both you and eric: why? Why? WHY?
what is the pay off?
i also think this is a horrible translation. it's quite distracting to read this guy and to get the sense that the translator has sometimes rendered badiou....
well, i guess the translator is trying to stay true to badiou's words -- the way he's expressed them in French -- without superimposing american colloquialisms and the like. but it is rather distracting sometimes, it's like I'm reading, what's the word?, some sort of pidgin.
and i do want to agree with you jeff, in your response to chuck, that going off and discussing the deep plantonism of the notion ontology = math is a bad idea. that's what badiou seems to expressly reject.
---
there is no one.
and there i'm readinb bada bing bada-badiou and grooving on all this business:
there *is* being and there is *being* and *there* is being
and i'm reminded of a day in the library, probably 15 years ago, reading up on buddhism, and coming across something like, "there is nothing". i'd repeated it so many times that it dawned on me to think of it as "there is no thing." "there *is* no thing." "there *is* nothing.
woah.
so, aside from the mind-bending fun of it all, what is the point - exactly?
aside from which, is it just me, or does this translation make badiou come off as, oh i don't know....
a prick?
i just want to sit down with him and say, "bada bing bada-badiou, you are *not* all that. you have a bag of chips. that is all. move along."
really? whatever it is that you've discovered, that set theory has turned plato on his head, or something? OK? it is not solving hunger and poverty. just sit down and shut the fuck up already about the priority of the many before the count-as-one and such like.
OK? here, have a creamsicle or something. it'll be all better soon.
so his wrestling with plato, such the way parmeneides (SP) reveals the answer - prefigures set theory or, rather, reveals the paradoxes that set theory addresses later -- but then plato dissembles (for lackof better word) and clings to the primacy of the one over the many, well ok.
but so?
typical disclaimer: have hardly wrapped my head around 'im but in an effort to forge on, i would like to know if there's a payoff?
shag
oh something something about love and freud and lacan. ok.