aww.. look who are here…

***

do you recognize chomsky = i and zizek = pi, and why is this so?

***

i is a name for root(-1) while pi is a name for 3.1415926… so what is different about them?

***

On Belief page 82:

There are thus THREE modalities of the Real, i.e. the triad IRS reflects itself within the order of the Real, so that we have the “real Real” (the horrifying Thing, the primordial object, like Irma’s throat), the “symbolic Real” (the signiﬁer reduced to a senseless formula, like the quantum physics formulae which can no longer be translated back into – or related to – the everyday experience of our life-world), AND the “imaginary Real” (the mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable “something” that introduces a self-division into an ordinary object, so that the sublime dimension shines through it). If, then, as Lacan put it, Gods are of the Real, the Christian Trinity also has to be read through the lenses of this Trinity of the Real: God the Father is the “real Real” of the violent primordial Thing; God the Son is the “imaginary Real” of the pure Schein, the “almost nothing” which the sublime shines through his miserable body; the Holy Ghost is the “symbolic Real” of the community of believers.

***

there also a third one: “e” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29 and these three are related: e^(i pi) = -1

***

in zizek’s terms, i think “i” should be the “symbolic real” of a senseless formula = sqroot(-1)

***

and “pi” has something sublime about it, since it goes on and on and on and on and on and on … http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/…/math5337/groupe/digits.html

***

ok here are my theses

1) i=chomsky is a question that appears like an answer

2) e=natural number makes it appear so

3) pi=zizek knows that nature does not exist, but it can just “posture” its neverending digits for now

***

infinitely many digits of the “natural” e is not considered as fascinating as the infinitely many digits of pi, which is curious. can it be due to the imaginary “obviousness” of a circle? remember that circles and regular polygons are symbols of the current legalist western democracy

***

legal democracy is a big regular polygon (complemented by a necessary minimum of a pentagon) // direct democracy is an attempt to reach to a circle

***

pi (1998) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOQUPmgbnY fascination with symbolic real… or “contribution” as they call it ?

***

“be rational” means “what is your ration?” (algebraic rule / affiliated institution), “get real” means “where are you on the real line?” (topology / political engagement). badiou speaks about this distinction in “theory of the subject” but he does not mention i or pi.