![]() We are going to liberate the means of cosmic production so that they may at last appear an und für sich. Instead of waiting upon some great messianic disjunction to be poured out the bank of possibility, I instead propose a somewhat different radicality – the need to break with the assumed traditional abalietic (being-from-another) relationship that on dynamei has upon the actual. But there is also a radical underside at work in these traditions – and not in the manner that Deleuze, Bloch and 20 th c. Historically the potential/virtual has been treated as lacking, as less real than that which is actual, as subservient to actuality, as a bank for producing actuality and little more. As I will endeavour to show, in each case the real problem that emerges is the strange idea that on dynamei is a way of expressing different modes of existence in their own right that are radically different from our assumptions about “actual” beings. ![]() In this forth part of our series I am going to be looking at two “potential problems”, so we might say – historical outgrowths of Aristotle’s doctrine of potentiality/virtuality. In the Metaphysics Aristotle declares that Non-Being can be said in three senses: the commonly understood meaning of something being simply false and not existing at all, a “categorical” sense in which negation simply means not this but something else, and, thirdly, on dynamei (Being in potentiality/virtuality), which is real but is not actual. ![]() In the previous part of this ongoing series we looked at Aristotle’s reception of Plato’s discovery of the equivocity of Non-Being in his late dialogue The Sophist. Image: Salvador Dali, Corpus Hypercubus, 1954
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |