At 10:58 PM 8/10/2009, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>At 09:01 PM 8/5/2009, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>but he is also clearly trying to dodge the problems of the kantian attempt
>>to forge a universal ethics. although . . . it occurs to me to wonder what
>>precisely badiou has to say about the idea of the synthetic a priori. which
>>would be pertinent here. maybe eric or someone else who's plowed through it
>>will know off-hand, but if it's come up in anything i've read so far, it
>>hasn't registered. i will have to go back and look at that.
>>
>>i am sort of working on a paper on dionysius the areopagite, badiou, and
>>rorty. if anything comes of it, i'll let you know. :)
>>
>>j
>>
>>and i think i am maybe starting to post again at
>>http://brainmortgage.blogspot.com/, although i hesitate to mislead on that
>>score . . . lol
>
>
>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.
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk