This is a reply to Partha Parthesarathy comment in my comment prefacing my reposting of Harman’s OO Philosophy blog posting (reposting), “…Obrist Interviews Michel Serres”. (Just prior to this post.)
The occasion seemed right to make a post of my reply, since when I speak of correspondence, I should be able to indicate what Serres’ ideas correspond to…
Partha; thank you for your reply. I am not entirely sure of your meaning due to your English skills, I believe (unless it is just bad texting :)) But If it is language limitation then am not shaming you for that because I only know English and feel quite embarrassed and poor in my single language proficiency; I admire you for your ability and bravery to exercise it and for learning.
It seems to me you are saying that the transformation is indeed the conveyance of significance in ideology. That the ‘center”, so to speak, is that which knows all, and that ideology is the limitation of this ‘center’, such that to be able to convey the significance of the ‘center’ as it indeed behaves as center of the ideology, as its manifestation as such, is the so sought after transformation.
This would thus be to say that the point of contention is the boundary between what is real and not real, ideology and — not nothingness, but it’s possibility: the ‘edge’ or the least possibility of ideology as void, manifest, as we might say, as ‘center’, what I have called the ‘Significant Event’. As you may have noticed from my essays (or not), I attempt to expose what this ‘edge’ is, what occurs there. Hence, the significant transformation might be to bring light upon this most hidden and marginalized aspect of ideological pomposity and presumption (irony included and intended).
For what I was saying, that led you to comment, and led me to respond (if even from a mistaken meaning) is that philosophy poses a sort of transformation (revolution; conversion in the ‘new’ Harman universe) of the human-on-the-scene into a type of ‘new enlightened human agent’. Yet I am proposing that such transformation only occurs in reality and has no basis beyond its real inscription: No movement occurs except within an ideological faith, and faith is based inherently in a denial expressed in its deceptive mode. For what I am attempting to expose is that space of ‘eternal’ position wherein no transformation is possible, that horizon wherein movement occurs along a necessary and determined vector, determined by the point of insertion and trajectory of its entrance, which thus falls into a ‘singular’ mode due to its necessary motion, but yet by its involvement with ideology (reality) — itself as ‘center’ is not real — posits a transformation from the position of real determinations that never occurs except as an aspect of faith.
The description of such an ‘eternal’ position thus is not so much a ‘void’ or ‘nothing’ as it is (as I have just said above) a kind of ‘evental horizon’: The constituency of a black hole is purely arbitrary and theoretically speculative, and in essence, beyond any ability to know of. That is, except that there is a real universe that notices such a hole. So perhaps one could say that where the individual resides in the conventional universe, her ideas about what may be the ‘hole-ness’ of the black hole (eternity; nothingness; void) amount to being merely a placeholder, a marker by which one may ‘jump’ from the real universe to the true universe — as if — but without ever enjoining with the horizon that can only be said to be not real, but through which one would have to travel in order to ever get to the true hole-ness of the black hole as well as the reality of the conventional universe. For, if there were no conventionally noticeable ‘hole’ then the conventional universe would not be conventional, it would be merely ‘universe’ and true, at that against a purely supernatural (metaphysical; speculative) conclusion gained by the lack of such referent void — as this is exactly the conventional ideological operative premise, it’s presumption of its ability to address all that is true. (See that this ‘physics-being’ correlation is all purely an analogy). And to boot; as we say and attempt to describe the truth of presumption of the not real center: There is no lack, but that the move or jump to the void is exactly part of the transcendental clause (see Badiou, the ‘immortal subject’, Ethics., as well as Kierkegaard’s ‘leap’).
Partha, if this is what you meant to incite by your reply, then I find it quite provocative. If not, then the mistakes of your conveyance still then nevertheless has provoked a significant meaning, and I thank you for your involvement. Though then also I would ask if you could clarify your intended meaning.