From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:33:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Why Badiou?


Glen
Thinking aloud...

>Perhaps here there is confusion between the (in Badiou speak) 'fidelity' of
>an event and the event itself?
>
Good point - I also think that in the contextualisation 'with the social 
antagonist' the Zizek text does have the similarities with Badiou 
position, but in that the position develops problematically - simply 
because psychoanalysis does not believe truth and thus fidelity can be 
achieved... But the inversion and the arrivel of a 'new truth' feels 
like the limited case 'truth' of a scientific paradigm shift. Like 
psychoanalysis is itself. So I think you are right - it does work.

>
>On page 67 (of my book, are they all the same eds?) he outlines "the three
>major dimensions of a truth-process".
>My reading of the three terms are as follows:
>The event, something radical, of the Void. An experience beyond
>comprehension where there is a process immediately set in motion.
> Fidelity, the process of dissemination of "my life as a socialised human
>animal, against something other then itself" (pg 60). Why I brought up the
>Zizek paper was I saw a simularity between Zizek's process, instigated after
>an encounter with the social antagonist, and that outlined by Badiou.
>Truth, the end product of the process, a new referent or a revised boundary
>of the Real. Where the Real is merely the set (haha set theory, I make bad
>jokes sometimes...) containing all truths. Which is why a new Truth comes
>from outside, from the Void.
>Steve, do you think that maybe that the Void could contain 'sexual
>difference' (at least for those individuals where sexual difference is a
>radical difference)?
>
Yes - I see where this is coming from and it hadn't occured to me that 
you could locate 'difference' from the 'void' .  I'll have to think 
about this some more and re-read the sections concerned...

regard

steve