In the preceding post I made strategic use of Badiousian concepts, but this does not mean that I adhere to the system that englobes and ordinates these concepts. Badiou’s system is useful when you want to enlarge your vision from just one type for example, but moving from one to four (truth-procedures) is not enough. I share Zizek’s (and Agon Hamza’s) preference for the « inconsistency » side of Badiou, over his system.
Inconsistency is on the side of the unconscious and of its interplay of intensities and the void. This potency of the inconsistent intensive unconscious is the reason that I have always preferred Zizek’s approach over Badiou’s. However, things change with Badiou’s THE IMMANENCE OF TRUTHS, where he elaborates on infinite subjective intensities residing in reserve in the unconscious, both as an immanent infinite resource of energy and ideas and also as an inchoate perception of new possibilities of which one is as yet unaware that one is capable. (For my summary and analysis see: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2018/10/06/my-path-through-badious-the-immanence-of-truths-full-english-text/)
Zizek seems to have been tempted to give in to what one could call a « quasi-system » of inconsistency based on his version of Lacan, and it is only recently that he is talking about the problems with Lacan’s system, and promising a book on this subject.
If Zizek follows through on this project, he would move from cross-capping Hegel and Lacan to assuming his own conceptual Klein bottle, which has always been present as a latency in his work but may now be brought forth more explicitly.
Zizek is able to say that Badiou’s mathematical ontology of inconsistent multiplicities does roughly the same work as his own quantum ontology of indeterminacies, but he finally comes down on the side of quantum mechanics. This means that ultimately he argues that between non-manifest inconsistent Being and the various manifest realities or ontic domains there is a third term, that of an ontologically incomplete « proto-reality », as described by quantum physics.
Laruelle makes a similar argument, and calls his approach a « quantum deconstruction » of Badiou’s system. I think that in his own way, by other conceptual means, Zizek too effects a quantum deconstruction of those systems that he considers contain fruitful elements, including Badiou’s.
Note: I am indebted to a discussion with Agon Hamza for helping me to clarify my ideas on this point.