15 November 2006

You're not it!

I was amused to awake this morning to this post in response to a recent diary on Badiou:
While it is certainly true that his most recent work, Logiques des mondes, is designed to account for being-there or appearing (the "one-ing" of being), Badiou's discussion of Dasein here strikes me as disappointing as it is primarily descriptive of consistent multiplicities, without giving us an account of how the operations that produce Dasein operate.

How could you possibly have missed the point about the "unspecified operational field made up of 'objects' on which one can define operations similar to addition and multiplication" (LdM 21) -- ?? -- Unless, of course, you've neglected to read the whole of the book itself, let alone approach something resembling what Plato calls "close thinking" in relation to an object. Supposing you've read the book, does the enveloppe not appear familiar to you, or have you forgotten everything you read in this 630 page tome--giving it the old heave ho--in favour of merely repeating this vain art of yours whereby, time and again, you recapitulate the silliest of the most widely recognizable readings of Lacan, Deleuze, Zizek, etc.; doing so whenever it seems you have gathered something to rekindle this bemusing attempt at closing the book on the only one who earnestly calls Lacan "his master."

You've also committed a foul by mingling together l'etre-la with Dasein. Sure, both translate as being-there, but that's completely arbitrary (thanks Saussure or Freud): not to rigourously distinguish between them not only forgets something every sociologist knows, but it makes you into a conceptual idealist.
I wonder what the point of such a post is. Am I being punished, chastized? Am I being told to throw in the towel and cease to write? Have I committed some horrible moral wrong by failing to summarize a 600 page book? I'm told that I "recapitulate the silliest of the most widely recognizable readings" of the thinkers I commonly discuss. I wasn't aware that I'm so commonplace, but apparently I'm just cluttering up the world. At any rate, I wonder what sort of desire makes such remarks and for what possible reason. There doesn't seem to be any desire here to produce a dialogue or discussion. There seems to be a great deal of anger in the remarks, as if I'm done some sort of horrible wrong. I even get the sense that the writer would like to hit me or kill me for some imagined wrong. I draw the connection between Dasein and l'etre-la from Peter Hallward's Badiou: A Subject to Truth (293), who draws it from Badiou's article "L'Etre-la: Mathematique du transcendental".


Anonymous TomEyers said...

I think I speak for most of your committed readers when I say that the comment you highlight is misguided and wrong at best, vindictive and semi-deranged at worst. Either way, it says alot more about the poster than it does about your fascinating blog.

November 15, 2006 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, tomeyers - ditto from me.

There's just too much petty jealousy and ressentiment out there in the rhizosphere.

Please continue what you are doing, Levi. You are an inspiration.

Orla Schantz

November 15, 2006 11:08 AM  
Anonymous austin said...

"misguided and wrong at best, vindictive and semi-deranged at worst."

I did not realize that my comment was as morally complex as all that. In short, it seemed to me at the time I wrote it an effective means of getting the author's attention so as to offer my alternative on the situation of interpretation Sinthome presents in the original post.

I would argue that my comment is nothing if not completely immoral.

November 15, 2006 4:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home