<< 000 | 00000 >>

0 to 1 as an Infinitely Dividable Opposition:
021 = 0infinity symbol1, or The Individuation of Self-Perception as Attributed to Binary Ideology

Samantha du Raeno

To create a scale where there is none, we divide the space between. That space in turn can be divided, and so on, until we end in the extreme case at The Infinite: an unimaginable, non-conceptual, perhaps experential ideal, an abstraction that 'exists' outside the sphere of perception. The presupposition is this: concepts are as valid as empirical reality. Common sense may dispute this, but the rational, logical sense will in turn dispute this disputation. Why shouldn't ideas be as valid as reality, if reality is all-inclusive?

The traditional dialectic of ideology is of a materially-based structure (consisting of the aggregate of the relations of production and exchange) determines the 'superstructure': religion, arts and ideas. Ideas can also influence the 'base' structure: however, history is primarily built/moved by material changes in the relations of production. This 'materialistory' is important, as individuation requires that ideas can free themselves (if they were not indeed free at the point of their conception) from a material basis: there can be no unilateral line of relationship between 'material' and 'ideal' factors.

To avoid claims of conceptual vulgarization, we may include ideas that in a broader whole we call reality, where material and ideal, 'matereality' and 'ideareality', are not necessary dialectic opponents. To what extent does an individual's material existence determine their 'idea-logy'? Originally meant to refer to a science of ideas, ideology became associated with ideas that were contrasted to science. This lays undone by the defusion of the science=truth=objective=1, myth=illusion/confusion/delusion=0 polarisation/binarisation, perfected by both the scientific and non-scientific traditions.

The search for a new 'Promethean foothold' was a core element of the modern/post-modern split: yet ideology versus science posits that a truth does exist, whilst ideology as a sectional interest relativizes that truth. The paradox is problematic, for a system that wishes to set itself by its differences, its oppositions ('post' as in 'better', 'newer'), yet relying on the similarities in order to do so ('post' as in 'post-'): 1-0, the paradox of binary complementarity. To contain the notion of ideology-based-in-reality within a theory, itself a set of ideas (which, if not to lay itself open to the charge of contingency must appeal to some notion of Absolute/Ideal truth), invokes a tension, a doubt, that can be hidden and/or resolved.

If the relative 'reality' of ideals and empirical reality cannot be conceived within the sphere of ideals itself (these ideals could themselves be Ideal or empirically provable, and thus not Absolute), the resolution of a necessary opposition may be prohibited by definition. Similarly, a belief in the validity of empirical notions over ideals requires an idea of truth to sustain itself. Within the sphere of empirical reality, therefore, a negative (in the sense of sectional interest) ideology could said to be at its strongest.

The belief in individuality rests on two assumptions about the infinite: firstly that it is the (Ideal) Infinite, and secondly that it is the practical infinite, that is, the infinite 'for all intents and purposes'. The first of these is an ideology of Truth; the second an ideology of non-Truth, or contingent truth. To believe oneself to be an individual may not be True, but it may well be Correct. The correctness is in direct proportion to that number of determining contingencies which define communalities by necessity, common examples being the needs to eat and drink. The need to desire to is a mere abstraction of the core principle: a juxtaposition of the Truth/non-Truth paradox of infinity, 120 = 1infinity symbol0, the individuation of self-perception.

<< 000 | 00000 >>