This certainly isn’t, but…. Consider some lines.
1. _______ * ___________ * _______|________ |* ___
2. ___ \_______ * _______/_____ * _|________ |* ___
3. ____\_____________/________\* ____ * ___ |* ___
Let each line be some aspect of society, defined intuitively or left as primitive for the sake of argument. Let the left end be earlier in time, the right end later. Assume time to be measured in some sort of unit which is somewhat consistently defined and constant, never mind what unit. Let “__” indicate continuity or the normal course of things, defined intuitively or left primitive for the sake of argument. Let “\” indicate interaction which proceeds from the line above and the line below, the former influencing the latter. Let “/” indicate the reverse. Assume that “\” and “/” are usually but not always instaneous, instead they happen across some statable period of time. Let “|” indicate reciprocal interaction between lines. Assume that “|” is usually but not always instaneous, that it happens across a unit of time smaller than whatever unit of time used. Let ” * ” be moments of rupture, defined intuitively or primitively. Assume that no matter how many lines are drawn more could be drawn.
Notice the following:
- continuity on one line can co-exist with rupture on another
- interaction can occur between lines in cases of rupture or continuity
- noninteraction can occur between lines in cases of rupture or continuity
The relationships across lines appear to be defined by continuity/rupture and noninteraction/interaction with subdivisions within interaction (one-way or reciprocal).
There are the following possibilities in terms of relationships between lines:
1. - continuity/continuity noninteracting
2. - continuity/continuity interacting one-way
3. - continuity/continuity interacting reciprocally
4. - continuity/rupture noninteracting
5. - continuiuty/rupture interacting one-way
6. - continuity/rupture interacting reciprocally
7. - rupture/rupture noninteracting
8. - rupture/rupture interacting one-way
9. - rupture/rupture interacting reciprocally
Note: the above assumes interaction only between two lines. Interaction between more than one lines would introduce other possibilities (such as, “interaction between two and only two lines” “interaction between three or more lines” etc).
The Hegel is starting to work.
Comment by Chuckie K — January 15, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
ha! that’s funny. maybe that _is_ the case, I’m not sure. I actually had in mind my recent complaints about Foucault (and, in the back of my mind, about Negri). Thanks for your comment re: Hegel as well. I haven’t read any further yet, I need to get a paper copy of the book, I can’t take long stretches of screen reading.
take care,
Nate
Comment by Nate — January 15, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Hegel in the sense of possibilites logically derived from the inner/conceptual principles of the problem. Without the interference of empirical instances. For Hegel, the ultimate in knowledge. For me, for us I suspect, a dandy way of deriving standards by which to judge the analytical adequacy of research and a dandy way of deriving hypotheses for investigation. Subject, however, to empirical matter’s propensity for manifesting patterns that don’t occur to us logically, analytically.
Comment by Chuckie K — January 17, 2008 @ 2:46 pm