Particulars and division

You said something like the only way is to limit the universe to particulars, but divides you (not agreeable to you). In the opposite way, I cannot …

Particulars and division

Yes. It is because of what you just said of yourself, of how you view things, that the phrase “ you can’t deal with infinities“ or something like that you said…That is the definition of correlationalism.

It is due to the correlational aspect of phenomenological orientation upon things, as I put it, that what seems like “outside” is infinite.

Correlationalism — but indeed Badiou , Meillassouxs mentor , talks about set theory and he deals with infinity and multiple infinities— Correlationalism identifies that particular mode of understanding things, such that what seems like what is outside of what is correlational is infinite.

But the point that he is making is that it is not. I am not dealing with infinite possibilities. I am dealing with the actual finite possibilities that arise as existing in the universe, as indeed the universe arises as the universe.

That’s why Miellassoux s book is called “after Finitude”. Because he is talking about how what is correlational is actually finite, which is to say that the correlational orientation upon the universe views the universe as involved in an infinite potential of which the human being can only know a small part, or as a group can only conceptualize a small portion. But he is saying that actually this manner of viewing the universe is finite, and is not actually conceptualizing the universe as it indeed is. Rather, it is conceptualizing the universe within a correlational space of subjectivity. Not reckognizong it’s correlational cycle of meaning allows for “infinite possibility” outside of it, but what is infinite is actually arising within the correlational meaning of the universe, as thought is necessarily attached essentially to Being, and by extension, the universe (a priori reasoning, dasein, intentionality, etc..). The phenomenal orientation thus sees ‘newness’ in the rehashing of things we already uncovered.

What is “after finitude” is a new type of philosophical reckoning that considers through a new mode what is actually been handed us philosophically, existentially, ontologically; a different mode than the traditional phenomenalist correlational method. Because we can no longer deny that what is a rising as a subjective orientation upon the universe is a closed system, a finite way of viewing what is actually occurring . in other words, there is no other way to go except to go outside of a method. There’s nothing new to find out; because we’ve already come to the end of the phenomenological reckoning of things and what it does. The only thing left is to uncover the repercussions of this kind of ability to view. 



x

One thought on “Particulars and division

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s