Search results

god thats good. ive been giggling almost non stop.

have you seen this? http://facesinplaces.blogspot.com/

padraig. not being able to "separate the betrayal from the truth process" does not mean that you are stupid.. this is part of the functioning of Badious ontology. it has a function withing the ontology of the Two. i was explaining something there... ill quote my response: "to clarify, what is...

but if something is 'flawed' then lets investigate. what is flawed?

i think ive tried, no? if i have missed something, or if something is unclear, then lets try to dig into it. i cant know how you 'read' these terms. i am trying to be as clear as possible. never had any intention to mystify, or be obtuse, as padraig said.

what the fuck? his jargon is very useful to me.. it envelopes me.. i can think within it.. thats my claim at least..

wait, where did you call my bluff? you just whined about me using jargon.. but this is the only way that i 'know' Badiou.. this is the language.. what do you want?

im not restructuring badiou.. but merely paraphrasing.. ive not give one original construction in any of my posts (ive 'followed through' a few times i think).. most of this stuff comes directly from the books.. this 'jargon' is not my jargon.. but i do claim that i can think 'within Badiou'...

honestly, i dont know what this means: "word games" if the words Event, Truth, and so on dont signify anything, its not because badious playing mysterious word games. maybe you dont fully understand them.. the concepts are quite simple, if your intellect prevents you from following through on...

correct. life is a truth process. this is nice construction.. but where would we be without Events?

here i disagree.. it has everything do with reality.. are you just being lazy? zizek often 'follows through' on badious ontology.. maybe you prefer zizeks style.. but dont say it has nothing to do with reality.. maybe you should try to 'follow through' yourself.. and enter a truth process..

similar to Tito.. my wife would say same for Georgia.. she feels very strongly about this..

no idea how to answer this.. its there. i have to try to understand it. thats all.. its not helpful if the words as signifiers are not clear.. i mean, in the beginning it was a little hard.. but i dont think badiou is a tricky writer.. very very clear really.

bad phrasing on my part! i meant Nomad "cant separate the Truth process from the betrayal of the Event". edit: to clarify, what is meant with the 'returns' to mao/lenin, is precisely this.. the Truth should be separated from the betrayal.. yes, the betrayal occurs, but there is use in...

oh. my. goodness. the problems here are evident, right?

what? but you dont agree with me. you are not understanding the Two.. you are talking about something entirely different than what is meant by the Two. Two = "antagonistic scission" "motor antagonism". NOT capitalism vs communism. the Two can be applied anywhere.. One and Two are differences...

no.. you cannot make this claim.. i cannot refute this necessarily.. but i can say with confidence that thats not necessarily true. weak, i know.. but im not badiou. mao is the source for much of badious examples of moments of Truth.. but so are scientists, mathematicians, poets, artists...

haha. yes, i am as well.. but not as the constitutive force of Law.

im happy we are able to enter into a truth process.. :p then forget about Mao.. you cant separate the Truth process from the betrayal of the Event (please, take it easy). this is always a possibility.. but we have to think clearly. edit: i understand how this might sound inadequate.. "well...

i should say then.. im not impressed with difference.. this is contingent. lets overcome difference.. this is what i mean. in a scientific positivist sense yes of course. you are right. we are all different.