ON “LOVE” AS GENERIC NAME: Badiou de-sufficientised

There is no absolute name for a generic multiplicity, any particular name quickly becomes associated with a predicative multiplicity of which the degree of apparition is greater than the minimum.

Badiou has increasingly argued that the actual history of the name “proletariat” has made it less generic and more predicative, and so increasingly defunct as the name of the idea of emancipation. I merely apply the same reasoning to “love”.

From a Laruellean perspective one could say that I “de-sufficientise” the term. This allows me to pose questions that noone else has, such as:

Why is the truth procedure that includes love called “love”?, which should not go without saying.

Why should “love” (the truth procedure) include psychoanalysis but not religion?

Why is “love” a matter of the Two and not one of multiplicities and metamorphoses?

Why is psychoanalysis reduced to Lacanism, a discredited system of conformist patriarchal normalisation?

All I am doing is provisionally de-categorising diverse theoretical terms to see if they have been adequately categorised or if they can be re-categorised otherwise.

This type of analysis should be neither puzzling nor exasperating nor threatening but common practice.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to ON “LOVE” AS GENERIC NAME: Badiou de-sufficientised

  1. Pingback: REPOST of Agent Swarm post on Badiou and Love. – Constructive Undoing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s