Certainty is most forcefully established through the forms with which people unassume the knowledge they adhere to.

The forms of its unassumption constitutes the being of a knowledge.

help gödel


True falls through False


you could work it backwards, but what if Gödel also starts wandering from the other end? And if he’d meet you in the middle, how could he recognize you, since you are not where … ? This is so very incomplete even for Gödel. OK there will be no proof, but he still wants to have the truth.

Backwards approach would not yield “the truth” lest “the whole truth”, but it could maybe yield “nothing but the truth”.

It reads like this in two time steps:
“Nothing, but the truth?”

I was referring to “nothing but the truth” in my previous message.

To refer to your message: “Nothing!” is at “But inconsistencies are what point to truths”, “Nothing, but the truth?” is at “Maybe this will be my chance”.

I really cannot get in the labyrinth. I think I might actually be afraid of Kurt Gödel in the time being.

Riddle-in-a-riddle is my escape route. Because labryrinth is rigged by names and words in every direction, I have to repeat them imperceptibly or rely on their existing (imperceptible or partially perceptible) repetitions to be able to jump elsewhere. A counter-rigging, if you will. But it is very difficult to stabilize a counter-rigging, because it is made up of pure relativity.

The difficult thing is to see Kurt Gödel himself in his own relativity, as a counter-rigging strategist. This would relieve the fear by making him indistinguishable from the relative “I”.

But this would be too difficult. One cannot read everyone and try to understand everyone. Well OK, Gödel is not everyone. But still.

The relative “I” needs to be physically organized somehow.

I don’t know draddle, we had “topaç” to spin. it just spins. https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=topa%C3%A7&tbm=isch

I’m looking it up. Interesting. “A great miracle happened-here”: “A” gets nothing, “great” gets all, “miracle” gets half, “happened-here” gives one (or three).

“A” and “happened” are form. “great” and “miracle” are content.

I found great vs. miracle especially interesting.

“Miracle” gets a fraction of what “great” gets. They are like relative vs. absolute, but in a quantitative relationship.

Or maybe it’s the reverse? “Great” can only be great with respect to the miracle. Qualitative ambiguity is immanent in quantitative vacillation. And maybe this is what makes the game fun.

It reminded me that Zizek tells about Church and Army near the end of Less Than Nothing. But these are really too abstract… Anyways.

I would say we could find a game in which to practice rigging and counter-rigging, but I doubt an appropriate game can be found. I know there are people who work on games with “themes” (http://ludumdare.com/compo/ludum-dare-31/?action=preview) but they are in a different abstract: an abstract looser in words, stricter in coordination.


How difficult it is to see that things only exist when they are spoken about, to see that people have this absolute freedom to destroy things simply by not speaking about them, and to see that they actually use this freedom, which we usually call neoliberalism.


And due to this short-circuit between surplus-value and surplus-enjoyment, “Marx” has become a signifier of politics whose use-value consists of distinguishing the mode of enjoyment particular to one’s own “Marxism” from modes of enjoyment that are particular to others.

Unwritten manuscript

call center

~ Call Centers: The Means of Production of The Big Other ~

I’m now reading a research book about call center workers:
“Persistent Mole: Youth, Class and Resistance in Call Centers”

The author, she is a Marxist —psychoanalysis and philosophy not very popular in political circles here— who terms this work as “destructive labor regime” although it’s ambiguous what is being destroyed.

From our point of view it’s easier to see: It’s the big Other that is at stake.

Production of the language of consumption — production of consumption in the form of language.

Continue reading “call center”


45. The evident character of this defective cognition of which mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff and is therefore of a kind that philosophy must spurn. Its purpose or Notion is magnitude. It is just this relationship that is unessential, lacking the Notion. Accordingly, this process of knowing proceeds on the surface, does not touch the thing itself, its essence or Notion, and therefore fails to comprehend it [i.e. in terms of its Notion]. — The material, regarding which mathematics provides such a gratifying treasury of truths, is space and the numerical unit. Space is the existence in which the Notion inscribes its differences as in an empty lifeless element, in which they are just as inert and lifeless. The actual is not something spatial, as it is regarded in mathematics; with non-actual things like the objects of mathematics, neither concrete sense-intuition nor philosophy has the least concern. In a non-actual element like this there is only a truth of the same sort, i.e. rigid, dead propositions. We can stop at any one of them; the next one starts afresh on its own account, without the first having moved itself on to the next, and without any necessary connection arising through the nature of the thing itself. Further, because of this principle and element —and herein consists the formalism of mathematical evidence— [this kind of] knowing moves forward along the line of equality. For what is lifeless, since it does not move of itself, does not get as far as the distinctions of essence, as far as essential opposition or inequality, and therefore does not make the transition of one opposite into its opposite, does not attain to qualitative, immanent motion or self-movement. For it is only magnitude, the unessential distinction, that mathematics deals with. It abstracts from the fact that it is the Notion which divides space into its dimensions and determines the connections between and within them. It does not, for example, consider the relationship of line to surface; and, when it compares the diameter of a circle with its circumference, it runs up against their incommensurability, i.e. a relationship of the Notion, something infinite that eludes mathematical determination.

G.W.F. Hegel, Preface to The Phenomenology of Spirit


I just finished Absolute Recoil. My diagnosis:
— You’ve got the exchange abstraction. Nothing much to worry about. Very common in these ages of the world [Weltalter]. You just need some relativity as such: take one each morning after breakfast.

Long answer: The book elaborates a variety of absolutes relative to one another and relative to themselves (‘self-relating negativity’, ‘absolute recoil’) but it does not investigate _relativity as relativity_ as the oppositional determination of absoluteness.

A dialectic is needed between relativity and absoluteness like the dialectic of necessity and contingency formulated in Less Than Nothing.

Do I have a solution? I’d written a mathematical formulation a few years ago:

It has some implications for the book’s resolution:

“den is less than nothing”.
— Yes. It is the unicity ‘less than zero’ that I indicate by a dot:
0′ = ·

“objet a is more than one, but less than two: 1 + a.”
— No. Objet a is ‘less than one’ (‘to be or not to be’), where the outer dot (‘not to be’) embodies the shadowy double:
1′ = · {·}

“In short, the objet a is den processed through the One.”
— Here we have the exchange abstraction. There’s the input, the blackbox and the output: ‘Technology.’ (*)

“[sinthome is] the Two, a couple (yin-yang, masculine-feminine, the two classes in society), plus the One of Y a d’l’Un which makes the sexual (or class) relationship impossible and possible at the same time as its constitutive obstacle (chimney sweep, Jew, rabble): 2 + a.”
— No. What is expressed here is a dilemma (‘this one or that one’), which is ‘less than two’, where the outer dot (‘none of them’) embodies the dilemma:
2′ = · {·} { · {·} }

Note that there could be 3 or more elements, and the outer dot (‘none of the above’) would still embody the antagonism:
3′ = · {·} { · {·} } { · {·} { · {·} } }

In this light, I have an answer to this Freudian question: Why did he make up the story of the three prisoner women? I think it was a passage a l’acte to mark the absence of _relativity as relativity_ in the book, to mark the abstaining from relativity as such.

(*): See Alfred Sohn-Rethel 1951 Intellectual Labour and Manual Labour (which was cited in The Sublime Object of Ideology). In fact I have a paper on necessity, contingency and Sohn-Rethel, but I have submitted it to a conference just a few days ago — OK, I’ve got the exchange abstraction too, well, I’m working on it.


On this topic:

1) objet petit a = “less than zero” = “less than the empty set”

2) Qualia is uncertainty, uncertainty is conditional counting

3) Virtuality is what is left behind by conditional subtraction

4) encapsulation is relativity

5) relativity?

6) Conditional Counting of Qualia

7) Why N-1 in standard deviation?