File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0110, message 155

Subject: Re: Why Badiou?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 00:00:16 +0800

> You write: "the definition of an event, which is related to the
> conflictual struggle based understanding of 'truth', is inevitably
> problematic.  Given that a truth is supposed to derive from an event, a
> situation it's not clear how the truth is derived."
Perhaps here there is confusion between the (in Badiou speak) 'fidelity' of
an event and the event itself?
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)?

> What I am suggesting is that the exercise of comparing what Lyotard and
> Badiou have in common and where they differ may help to illuminate both
> philosophies and this is finally why it is appropriate for this group to
> have this discussion.

Oops, sorry, I better let you guys do that, then I will write some more, you
know the theorists much better than I. It is good fun though!!



Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005