On the Ideal Objectivity of Mathematical Symbols

What is the nature of the ideal objectivity of mathematical symbols? Are mathematical symbols universal and beyond the problem of translation, leaving behind the Babel of ordinary languages? Is a Platonic philosophy of mathematics thus viable? Or is it, contrary to popular belief, possible to rigorously deconstruct mathematics? There is a sense in which Derrida seems to grant mathematics immunity from the work of deconstruction, often alluding to the formality of mathematical symbolization as a means to transgress the untenable metaphysics that springs from logocentric discourses bound to phonocentrism.

La voix et la phénomène

La voix et le phénomène Introduction au problème du signe dans la phenomenology de Husserl Presses Universitaires de France, 1967 Introduction « Un nom prononcé devant nous nous fait penser à la galerie de Dresde et à la dernière visite que nous y avons faite : nous errons à travers les salles et nous arrêtons devant un … Continue reading

Transcendental Auto-Immunity

. . . . In the 1935 Vienna Lecture, published in Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie, Edmund Husserl diagnosed the European sciences and their Lebenswelt, ‘life-world,’ as being ridden by crisis; transcendental phenomenology sought to assume the proper philosophical responsibility. The war and its aftermath, the rise of Nazism, etc., were … Continue reading

Unidentified Flying Objects: Parallelism, Virtuality, Immanence, Transcendence

The specter, the revenant, and the revenance is coming from what is to come—futurity—in the degree to which we blind ourselves in our simulatory spatiality. Now there will always be interferences, because every gramma is simulation. But the spectrality is sounder, it seems, if recognized as of futurity, and not as a assemble belts from past to present, making its interruptions and disturbances the motive for maiming presence. If I should try to determine further what past is, I would say that it is to be related to the iterativity of futurity as what definitely will not come, only can not-come, already shit out of the what-is-to-come; this is what the past is, however “valuable” one may deem it, in other respects.

Fare Well My Loves, Derrida, &c, Cixous. Part I

…There is nothing but writing, in a certain sense, but writing uses a space a blank space, an ignorant biblion, bibliophoros, what carries letters; it has to space in order to be in the writing of its writing. The blank space is also the fortress buttressing, then by spacing writing all it can, against the Nothing that Derreath traces in Husserl but that just as well might be directly related to writing written here as Iou have wrote.

There are at least six things to remember, when reading and writing, experiencing: first the almost immediate Nothing in the very banal concreteness of the blank, the spacing, and the grammas; second the Nothing that the writer faces faced toward the paper and screen; third the Nothing between the intended writer and the intended reader; fourth the Nothing the reader faces looking into those spaced grammas; fifth the Nothing that ships texts out with no possible addressee; and sixth that Nothing that says that total death and absence is the very condition of possibility of there being decipherable texts.