Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Concrete universals and plurisingularity

Continuing from this post, I'm reminded of this post, Shaviro commenting on Whitehead's eternal objects:

"Eternal objects thus take on something of the role that universals...Platonic forms and ideas played in older metaphysical systems. But we have already seen that, for Whitehead, 'concrete particular fact' cannot simply 'be built up out of universals'; it is more the other way around. Universals...can and must be abstracted from 'things which are temporal.' But they cannot be conceived by themselves, in the absence of the empirical, temporal entities that they inform. Eternal objects, therefore, are neither a priori logical structures, nor Platonic essences, nor constitutive rational ideas" (18).

However in Bonnie's exegesis she didn't mention image schema as that which mediates between the universal and the particular. These basic categories are prerational categorical (differential) structures and thus below or antecedent to rational relative and absolute categories. But they are categorical differentials nonetheless, and this is the onto-genetic universal-particular (or plurisingularity) as differance.

All of which is Whitehead's 'concrete particular' or Hartshorne's 'relative' term if by that we mean that the whole shebang is Deleuze's immanence, with the transcendent as that which is outside time and space, the disembodied abstract, false reason for Lakoff and deficient reason for Gebser.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.