also, can't help but think of simmel who sauntered in and out of seeming paradoxes such as "he who wholly loves cannot wholly love."
and then i'm left wondering why the entire history of american metaphysics was just left out: santayana, james, dewey, whitehead, justus buchler.
buchler wrote _Metaphysics of Natural Complexes_ dealing with this issue of one and many. Nevermind Whitehead.
They apparently don't exist for Badiou. which, I guess, well... if you are going to say that Heidegger is the last metaphysician... yeah yeah yeah. he means 'widely' known I suppose.
whine whine whine.
shag
At 01:20 PM 8/11/2009, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>At 11:57 AM 8/11/2009, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>i can only place a marker here (not to be a tease ;-), because i am already
>>going to be late, but this i think is wrong? or maybe i want it to be. i
>>think singularities are precisely made. they require an effort of will. or
>>maybe that is only the event. here is where it hurts not to have yet read
>>B&E, so i just have to ask the question -- is singularity different from
>>event?
>
>not far enough along for that. i was thinking more in terms of his concept
>of social change. it kept reminding me of a durkheimian organicism where
>an event inevitably will be and that moves society along. this reminds me
>of how social change is explained in structural functionalist schools of
>thought. if society is like an organism, it's operations are geared toward
>homeostatis.
>
>currently, i'm dripping wet having been out condo hunting. i might
>describe this as an unfortunate set of circumstances. ugh. yuck.
>
>but it is just my body responding -- homeostatically -- to a rise in
>temperature. i sweat to cool off.
>
>i was just in the basement of one of these condos, looking at the storage
>unit. i felt a drip. Oh. Something's dripping.
>
>it's a problem.
>
>but it's not. it's condensation. it's what it was supposed to do. and the
>event seems to be something that is supposed to -- must -- happen.
>
>philosophers are supposed to step in tounderstand why it did. or
>something. but that is just my skimming around this book. i should get
>serious and perform the necessary exegesis.
>
>it is too fuckin' hot.
>
>shag