previous | | 1.9.8 (91) | contents


 fig.75—Bruno on Plotinus on Plato, above, and fig.41—Žižek on Lacan on Hegel (§1.5) both strive to capture the oscillation of lopsided fourfolds in terms of qualified quantities. Contrast Lacan’s 1960 hyperbole: “the balance arm of the scales around which the equilibrium of semblable to semblable decomposes in the relationship between Master and Slave” to Hegel’s 1807 pendulum: “as the first negative is already the second term, the term reckoned as third can also be reckoned as fourth, and instead of a triplicity, the abstract form may be taken as a quadrupliticy” to Bruno’s 1591 compass: “Four things circle around God, or universal Nature, or universal Good, or absolute Beauty. They perpetually circumambulate their bonding agent in a consistent order, and can recede from the center only by the distance to their own center—otherwise, they would be annihilated. According to the Platonists, these four are mens, anima, natura, and materia; mind, in itself, is stable; soul, in itself, is mobile; nature is partly stable, partly mobile; matter is wholly both.”—and so, Bruno winds the Platonistic fourfold around a proto­-Spinozistic FourFold. If we omit the Latter can we site the former

index | 1.9.9 (92) | | next

Insofar as 1 and 2 are univocal, we might call the A­-axis unequivocal—but is the B­-axis equivocal? It depends how you read e.g., Plato  vs. Plotinus. The perennial head­-scratcher, as it were. Planar graphs periodically go in and out of favor, but as Euler et al. evinced, ‘The Calculus’ was no topological panacea. While Dee’s appointment afforded his idle wingnuttery, Bruno’s contracts were (in corporate jargon) ‘results driven’. Where Lacan shifted the denotata of a dozen glyphs in as many graphs, Bruno alphabetized the loci of hundreds (e.g. Figura Mentis, below) such that end users (e.g. Philip Sydney) could interchange logos per topos—i.e., terms in topologies, content under constraints, or skins over skeletons. To wit:


Of (a) Bruno’s woodcut, we use (b) his notated lattice to (c) concatenate any three dissymmetric fourfolds at A~D|E~H|L~P; we pull the QR ‘pins’ to break out (d) four subnets; we can bind any two triadic subfields by (e) the unicursal hexad, such as (f) by a twist on the knot Venn tied to Euler (“in the case of [PA/PN] the same diagram is commonly employed to stand for them both”) we flip the syllogistic powersets P over U to unseat such canonical nonsense as bachelors (discoursing) on unicorns and cats (sat) on mats. ØED.

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share