Skip to main content

To be immune to the rhythms

Our (Alexandre Costa-Leite and me) first paper on galaxy theory has been accepted in Logica Universalis. I've been thinking of the idea of up for grabs in connection not to non-necessity but rather to infection, contagion or repetition - that is in terms of lack of immunity to the concrete surroundings. In different galaxies (different classes of possible world), different swings are immune to entrainement by other rhythms - different galaxies would have different matrixes of necessity and immunity and therefore would have different things up for grabs.

Immunity is not quite the same as necessity - but it has something to do with having an essence that makes sure that something is not taken astray by what is around it. The issue about the nature of necessary connections relate to the issue of having immunity (and community, to use Esposito opposition). Being up for grabs is also to be in a community, to be open to the other rhythms as opposed to being hostage of an essence, of an enduring nature that makes something dispensed from doing service to the rest (im-munis). To be immune is to be outside the scope of alliances, to be out of the plane where those alliances are crafted (the surexistence). I believe this is a better vocabulary than that of essences. Immune things are not in the commerce of services, don't have a-mmuni-tion because it is closed in itself, doesn't defend and doesn't attack.


Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne