Rotman zero semiotics

But Lear makes this domestic relation into a fnancial transaction, forcefully
inserting it into a system of mercantile exchange.
Seeking to commodify love, or raise, he destroys it.
!he anti"tye of #ordelia here is $dmund
%nfnity
R. & '. (il)ourn
'd %nfnitum* !he +host in !uring,s -achine .!aking +od out of -athematics
and /utting the Body Back in* 'n $ssay in #ororeal Semiotics0. By Brian
Rotman. Stanford* Stanford 1niversity /ress. 2334. 564. %SB7 6"869:"
5258"3.
!here is a concet ;hich corruts and usets all others. % refer not to $vil,
;hose limited realm is that of ethics< % refer to the infnite.
" Borges, ='vatars of the !ortoise=
7ote* !hroughout this revie; article, the term =ellisis= is reresented )y =...
= instead of a character resem)ling a rounded uside"do;n caret sym)ol,
due to the restrictions imosed )y internet rogramming.
%nfnity lies at one extremity of >estern .and, some ;ould say, $astern0
thought, one end of a metahorical line ;hich, in conformity ;ith the non"
$uclidean geometry of consciousness, )ends )ack uon itself, its ends
aearing to converge in a meeting of radical negativity and limitless
magnitude, )eyond sace and time.
%n the midst of his demystifcation of modernity as secularized eschatology,
?ans Blumen)erg ackno;ledges that the )est evidence for it is +iordano
Bruno,s alication of the attri)ute of infnity to the ;orld .Blumen)erg
238@* :30. !his is not to say that the ;orld or the universe had never )een
conceived in these terms )efore< /lato, for one, ascri)es a conditional
infnitude to the universe in the !imaeus .section 480. 1nder the #hristianity
of the Renaissance, infnity ;as the last attri)ute left to +od, )esides )eing.
%f infnity ,migrated, from +od to the ;orld ;hen the former ;ithdre; from
the latter .or ;hen +od ;as denied )eing as ;ell0, then no; that ;e no
longer hold the universe to )e infnite, ;here does this attri)ute resideA %n
other ;ords, in ;hat discilines or discourses does infnity still have a lace
or erform some functionA -athematics, for one. %n his frst )ook " Signifying
7othing* !he Semiotics of Bero .238:0, ;hich left oC ;here his ne; one
)egins " Brian Rotman recounted the crucial signifcance of zero in the
history of calculation. Bero, of course, has t;o distinct functions in
numerical terms* it is, on the one hand, oint of origin and telos, and on the
other, a lace"holder that also aCects the value of adDacent numerals,
desite the fact that it has no numerical value in itself .Rotman 238:* 250.
!he resence of infnity in classically conceived mathematics is tied to that
of zero, ;hich had aeared in the >est )y the t;elfth century in the form
of the ?indu"'ra)ic sign, ;hich is also the root of ,ciher., Rotman
maintained that =the mathematical infnite ;as the fruit of the mathematical
nothing* it is only )y virtue of zero that infnity comes to )e signifa)le in
mathematics .Rotman 238:* :20. But ;here theology and, more recently,
metahysics, ;ere dislaced as authoritative discursive systems in the ost"
medieval eriod, mathematics has retained an authoritative status, not least
)ecause, in addition to ;hat $instein some;hat facetiously called its
,a)solute truth, and indisuta)ility, .giving to =the exact sciences a measure
of confdence ;hich they could not other;ise attain= ERosenfeld 2388* 429F0,
mathematics in its instrumental function undergirds the technological and
commercial ;orld that most eole inha)it .Rotman 2334* 2920. +enerally
seaking, from a late"t;entieth century vantage oint, infnity is in no
danger of vanishing from the contemorary feld of theoretical inGuiry " a
situation ;hose aarent irony is su)verted )y a deeer logic.
Brian Rotman,s more recent )ook, the exhaustively titled 'd %nfnitum* !he
+host in !uring,s -achine .!aking +od out of -athematics and /utting the
Body )ack in* 'n $ssay in cororeal semiotics0 engages ;ith the ro)lem of
the infnite in mathematics and semiotics. Rotman,s )ook, as an essay ;ith
a relatively narro; set of concerns .including infnity0 is a generally
coherent, often demanding ;ork. %n general, Rotman,s systematic
exloration of a ossi)le alternative to a metahysically )ased, $uclidean
mathematics raises a host of other Guestions revolving around the
venera)le ro)lem of the reresentation or signifcation of something ;hich
evades reduction to the fnite materiality of this or that signifer. -ore
secifcally, Rotman,s thesis is a thorough"going attemt to confront ;hat
;ould make most eole very )ored )ut ;hich seems to make him very
nervous* the ossi)ility of otentially or actually endless counting.
!he oening of Rotman,s ,a)stract, dra;s attention to the long"standing
connection )et;een infnity and the divine .ix0, and as such introduces his
argument,s rincial element of contention* as he reeats throughout, ,ho;
to think the infniteA, >hat is meant )y the infnite in this semio"
mathematical contextA ?aving introduced this foundational ro)lem,
Rotman immediately shifts a;ay from the theo"metahysical to the
mathematical .and, secondarily, semiotic0 infnite, ;here it is found at ;ork
in )oth =the geometrical continuum of oints on a line and their integer"
)ased real num)er descritions " t;o linked a)stractions ;hich ground all
ost"Renaissance mathematics. 'nd it is the founding signifed, the crucial
ontological term, in contemorary mathematics, descrition of itself as an
infnite hierarchy of infnite sets= .ix0. !hat the o)Dect of thought is relegated
to this secifc context does little to alleviate the ro)lem of thinking infnity.
Rotman asks ho; a set of ,natural, num)ers .2, 5, 4... 0 can exist, like the
sym)olic order, not merely indeendently of, )ut rior to, the su)Dect ;ho
uses them in counting .x0. !his is a ro)lem )ecause of the ellisis .... 0 that
al;ays ends the examle* ;hat Rotman calls the fundamental
ideogrammatic shorthand for infnity .ix0. =?o;,= Rotman asks, =does infnity
get to )e an exact, rigorously secifed mathematical o)Dect " an o)Dect
a)out ;hich mathematics delivers ,true, and ,o)Dective, kno;ledgeA= .ix0. %n
other ;ords, ho; does infnity, in itself unthinka)le, get to )e thought, ;hen
only a thing, )y defnition, is ,thinka)le, .can )e thought, thematized,
comrehended, totalized0A !o totalize infnity as something )eyond its
resence as a sign is a logical contradiction, in that it reGuires a ,fnitization,
of infnity, )ut then the idea of infnity is itself a logical contradiction. So
ho;, as Rotman asks, are ;e to think infnityA Rotman rightly oints out the
easily forgotten recet that ;e =are never resented ;ith the ure idea of
infnity as such. ?o; could ;e )eA= .x0. !he ,idea, of infnity, like the idea of
+od, is not a thing, roerly seaking. But for Rotman =)eing thought in
mathematics al;ays comes ;oven into and inseara)le from )eing ;ritten.=
%n other ;ords, it is recisely as a ,thing,, a sign .;ord, ideogram0 that
Rotman chooses to think infnity* if num)ers, )eing ;ritten, =can )e
uncreated, re;ritten, deconstructed, altered,= then infnity =)ecomes
inseara)le from certain eCects of the signifer, a henomenon of
mathematical texts, grammar, syntax, notations, and discourse= .4@0.
Rotman frames his discussion of infnity from the very )eginning in terms of
mathematics, rather than ;hat he dismisses in the oening aragrah as
=its hilosohico"theological o)scurities and contradictions= .ix0. !his ;ill
rove to )e decisive in his su)seGuent concetualization of a non"infnitist
mathematics according to a restrictive )inary logic* either infnity is allo;ed
for in all its intolera)le unendingness, or it is excluded, and the system re"
cali)rated in terms of the comfortingly ositive ground of the counting
su)Dect,s )odily .limited, mortal, fnite0 resence. Hor Rotman, =the Guestion
of reinstating the )ody EisF all"ervasive and crucially imortant= .2:3 n. :0.
Rotman,s focus .as he resolutely maintains0, is on the mathematical concet
" even the infnite itself " as ;ritten * =!hinking in mathematics is al;ays
through, )y means of, in relation to the maniulation of inscritions.
-athematics is at the same time a lay of imagination and a discourse of
;ritten sym)ols= .x0. ?e then osits that =the Guestion of the mathematical
infnite= )e osed =as a Guestion of language, as art of an overall study of
the nature and ractice of mathematical signs " as art, that is, of a
semiotics of mathematics= .x0.
%n develoing this semiotics Rotman renounces a =hilosohical critiGue of
the metahysical system, the ramant /latonism, that threads its ;ay
through the contemorary interretation of mathematics= .xi0. Rather, he
engages in a critiGue of ;hat seems to him =an altogether more su)tle
metahysical rincile that ermeates the entire su)Dect=* =the rincile of
ad infnitum continuationI inseara)le from the mathematical community,s
;holesale accetance of the vie; that the num)ers are ,natural,, and its
failure to ask the Guestion of ;here these num)ers could ossi)ly have
come from= .xi0. !he Guestion of the mathematical infnite is thus from the
start tied to the Guestion of counting and therefore to the Guestion ,;ho
countsA,< that is, the Guestion of a mathematical su)Dect. Rotman,s
investigation of infnity is inextrica)ly )ound u ;ith a concern for the
counting su)Dect, the one ;ho is faced ;ith the rosect of otentially
endless counting so succinctly exressed in that ideogram ,I,. But Rotman,s
Guestion a)out ,thinking the infnite, does not disaear so easily, since
even the ans;er of thinking via the ;ritten still imlies someone or
something doing the thinking. Rotman,s reiterated concern ;ith reinstating
the )ody in mathematics cannot disel the insistence of consciousness in
any discussion of infnity. %t emerges that this rhetoric of the )ody is a
means of roviding concetual or even cognitive limits to an other;ise
limitless discussion< i.e. everything cororeal is fnite and therefore limited
and kno;a)le .temorality, imlying change and mortality, are for the
moment unmentioned0. %n other ;ords, to emhasize the centrality of
consciousness " of the counting su)Dect as mind rather than )ody " ;ould )e
to contaminate the investigation of one instance of radical unkno;a)ility
.the mathematical infnite0 ;ith another, assuming the resence in
consciousness of a constitutive and irreduci)le negative dimension .;hether
fgured as the ,unconscious, or other;ise0. 7evertheless, the Guestion of the
mathematical su)Dect,s relative self"consciousness ;ill rove to )e
unavoida)le.
!he three elements in the title of the ,a)stract,, =+od, 7um)er, !he Body,=
are resented in ascending order of imortance to Rotman,s thesis. ?e
returns, to )egin ;ith, to the toic )rieJy )roached at the outset* the
insistence .that is to say, the unavoida)ility0 of +od in any discussion of
infnity " a toic that aears to cause Rotman anxiety if only )ecause he
feels it distracts from the real and rational matter at hand* a )ody")ased
mathematics. =E%sF there not in the very idea of their endlessness , their
continuation ad infnitum , something strange and other a)out the ;hole
num)ers, the imrint or trace of some disem)odied transcendent maker,
erhasA= .40. Rotman rovides a )rief overvie; of the history of
mathematical thought .40, highlighting moments of ,crisis,, ;hen =the
Guestion of the infniteIushed itself to the foreground.= ?ere he
emhasizes the 'ristotelian distinction =)et;een a safe and legitimate
otential infnite, and endless coming into )eing, and a dangerous, aradox"
infested comleted or actual infnite= .90. !his distinction ;ill rove to )e of
more than historical signifcance to the su)seGuent develoment of
Rotman,s argument. Rotman considers the otential infnite to )e the only
concetion of infnity that can )e =cognized as meaningful and
mathematically interreta)le= .990.
's in the history of hilosohy, mathematical thought emerges out of the
t;o maDor systems of 'ristotle and /lato, and modern mathematics is still
thoroughly im)ued ;ith elements of )oth, rimarily the latter. =Hor most
mathematicians, mathematics is a /latonic science, the study of timeless
entities, ure forms that are someho; or other simly ,out there,,
reexistent o)Dects indeendent of human volition or of any conceiva)le
human activity= .@0. %n classical terms, then, mathematics is thus conceived,
inconceiva)ly, as an infnite set of infnite sets. Kveragainst this exists a
,constructivist, alternative, ;hich insists =that any mathematical roof of the
existence of an o)Dect had to )e in the form ofIa fnitely secifa)le
rocedure that could ,in rincile, )e executed in the mind= .@0. %n this vie;,
the ,rogression of integers, is =a otential and not an actual infnity,= ;here
the act of counting is =to )e erformed dee inside our " (antian " intuition
of time= .@0. Rotman attemts to osition himself as neither a /latonist nor a
constructivist .constructivism )eing immersed in =an unexaminedly ideal
mentalism= ELF0.
!his leads directly into the ro)lem of ,natural, num)ers .,natural, =)ecause
they are given at the outset, taken for granted as a founding, unanalyza)le
intuition outside any critiGue that might demand an account of ho; they
come or came " otentially or actually " to ,)e,= E@F0 and the even more )asic
Guestion of num)er,s ultimate rovenance* =>here do num)ers come fromA
%f not from (ant,s transcendental intuition orI+od, then ;hereA= .L0. 'gain
Rotman has recourse to ;riting, inscrition, signifcation, via the inescaa)le
rocess of counting, since counting =is an activity involving signs= ;hich
=;orks throughIsignifcant reetition= .L0. Hrom ;hich follo;s a Guestion
;hich eCectively reframes his initial Guestion regarding infnity in terms
more mathematical )ut no less eistemological* =?o; are ;e to imagine a
)usiness of reeating the self"same signifying act ;ithout end, of iterating
for ever A Kr, ;hich ;ill come to the same, ;hat ;ould it mean to deny the
ossi)ility of endlessly reeating a signifying actA= .L0.
-athematics is erhas uniGue as a language in the num)er of signifers it
har)ours ;hich =seem to reGuire an ,infnity, as their signifeds= .L0. Hor
Rotman this is evidence that =our contact ;ith infnity is al;ays and only
through ;riting= .L0. !he strange thing a)out mathematical ideograms, as
Rotman oints out, is that they rovide )oth something to count and the
means )y ;hich to count .:0. ')ove and )eyond the integers themselves,
ho;ever, Rotman distinguishes a language of ,formal mathematics,* ;hat he
calls ,the #ode,, comrised of terse imeratives devoid of ,indexical
exressions such as su)DectMo)Dect ronouns, adver)s, inJected ver)s, etc. "
;ords ;hich =tie the meaning of messages to the hysical context of their
utterance .:0.= +iven this language, or ,#ode,, Rotman then develos a
model that reJects ;hat it means to =do mathematics,= that situates the
mathematical agency imlied )y the #ode.
!his model is imagined as a thought exeriment in /eircian terms, =layed
out through ;ritten signs= .80 and =organized in terms of three fgures= or
,semiotic agencies, oerating =simultaneously at diCerent levels of
discourse=* =the mathematical Su)Dect = " the readerM;riter of formal
mathematical texts, =;ho uses the #ode )ut has no access to any
descrition of itself= .80< the =/erson ,= immersed in history =and in the
cultural su)Dectivity coded )y the ,%, of natural language that ermeates the
meta#ode= of ,informal mathematical language., %n other ;ords, the
,Su)Dect, is not a su)Dect roerly seaking, ;hereas the ,/erson, is. 's if the
Su)Dect ;eren,t a)stract enough, it has an ='gent,= an =idealized
simulacrum of itself as its surrogate,= an =automaton ;ithout the a)ility to
engage ;ith any meanings,= oerating =only ;ith signifers at a su)"#oded
level.= 'll three of these ,agents, .although the ,'gent, is not an agent
roerly seaking0 are necessary to =enact a single thought exeriment
narrative. >hat Rotman has articulated ;ith this trile agency is the inside"
out metahysics he erceives as constitutive of mathematics, ;hich, like
many alternative universes and ossi)le ;orlds osited in fction, decreases
in verisimilitude the ,deeer, the thought"exerimenter .the ,/erson,A0
delves. %n fact, the faint echo of a ra))it hole or dim reJection of a looking
glass ;orld )ecome more insistent ;hen one notices Rotman,s reeated use
of the troe of the ,;aking dream, for )oth the ractice of mathematics and
the .theoretical0 thought exeriment a)out it* =% read mathematical signs in
terms of a certain ;ritten ractice, a )usiness of maniulatinginscritions
that characterizes mathematical thought as a kind of ;aking dream= .xii0<
or* =EtheF thought"exerimental model allo;s us to read mathematics as a
)usiness of making certain kinds of ,rigorous fantasies, or ;aking dreams=
.30. !he imagined structure of the thought exeriment verges on the
Borgesian* =!he imagining Su)Dect corresonds to the dreamer dreaming the
dream, the skeleton 'gent to the imago, the fgure )eing dreamed, and the
/erson to the dreamer a;ake in the conscious su)Dectivity of language
telling the dream= .30. !he otential for this model to turn into an infnitely
regressing mise"en"a"dream is th;arted )y that third term* the conscious,
su)Dective, em)odied, ;ide"a;ake ,/erson,, recounting his or her dream, not
in the mathematical meta"#ode )ut in ;hat is resuma)ly the non"
mathematical language of narrative, the telling of a tale ;hich shares its
etymology ;ith tallying .)oth ,tale, and ,tally, are tracea)le )ack to the %ndo"
$uroean Ndel, to =aim at, calculate, lie in ;ait=0, or otentially endless
counting, )ut has for a variety of reasons succeeded in hyostatizing a form
of ar)itrary closure ;ithin its secifc logic .narratology0. !his is )y no
means to stray )eyond the )ounds of Rotman,s text* if it is ossi)le to
conceive of a discursively"constituted su)Dect that narrates itself into )eing,
it might )e ossi)le to conceive of a mathematical su)Dect that counts
num)ers into )eing. 'ssuming the unitary nature of such a su)Dect, there is
no need that a limit )e imosed from outside on the otential endlessness
of counting< the su)Dect,s hysical death .assuming it exists ;ithin time0 ;ill
guarantee its cessation.
's Rotman remarks in a later chater* =EcountingF resents itself as
rototyical of the very )usiness of sign creation itself. >e count )y
reeatedly enacting the elemental rocess of creating identity )y nullifying
diCerence, reeatedly aOxing the same sign ,2, to individual ,things, "
o)Dects, entities " that are manifestly not the same Gua individuals in the
;orld")efore"counting from ;hich they have )een taken= .@20. Rotman
interrets counting =as a mathematical ur "cognition, as the ure and
distilled mode of the roduction of identity and sameness= .@20.
Hor Rotman the culrit is ;hat he names =the ad infnitum rincile " the
rincile of al;ays one more time .@50,= ;hose mathematical version is the
axiom that =for any num)er x there exists a num)er y such that y P x Q 2,=
;ithout ;hich it is imossi)le to conceive of the endlessness of num)ers. %n
considering the imlications of reDecting this endlessness, Rotman,s focus is
once again the counting su)Dect* rather than osit the fnitude of the
hysical universe .a fnite Guantity of articles to )e counted0, Rotman
suggests the limitation of =the time"san of an individual life .@40,= and Dust
as Guickly reDects this =move of constraint= as =unacceta)ly ar)itrary.=
%n the triadic su)Dect of classical mathematics, it is the relation )et;een
Su)Dect and 'gent, secifcally their resem)lance, ;hich is crucial, and in
this resect =the decisive characteristic is that of hysicality= .30. 'ccording
to Rotman, if it is going to count endlessly for us, as it ;ere in our lace, the
'gent"imago cannot have a )ody, it =has to )e something transcendental, it
has to )e a ghost= .3"260. %t cannot even )e a uet or machine, for
examle, since any =scra of hysical )eing ho;ever rarifed and idealized=
;ill necessarily sa)otage its =eCorts to count endlessly,= as it ;ill then )e
su)Dect to satio"temoral contingencies, energy loss, entroy, and so forth.
Rotman focuses on this element of hysicality* =E;Fhy should an em)odied
mathematical Su)Dect, ;hose identity and a)ility to interret signs are
inseara)le from its hysical )eing and contingent resence in the ;orld,
create a totally disem)odied 'gent as its roxyA= .260. !he danger of the
classical schema is that the =disem)odied 'gent,= =a sirit, a ghost or angel
reGuired )y classical mathematics to give meaning to ,endless, counting,=
comes to resem)le the +od of metahysics .260. !hus the ghost moves from
!uring,s machine to =/lato,s !rue 1nchanging ?eaven.= Rotman contends
that it is therefore necessary to dis)elieve in this disem)odied 'gent< to
=reDect not only /latonic orthodoxy, )ut, more fundamentally, the very idea
of disem)odiment itself, to refuse altogether the imago of endlessness=
.260.
Rotman roceeds to grant this classical mathematical 'gent .itself a
articularly su)tle ,metahysical rincile, E54F0 a =suita)ly idealized )ut
never a)sent= )ody .260. =!he resulting cororealized mathematics oens
out into a ne; concetion of iteration, of counting and therefore of ;hat ;e
might and could mean )y ,num)er., >hat emerges is a non"$uclidean
arithmetic= .26"220. 't this oint it is imortant to read carefully, for ;hat
Rotman is instituting is not a denial of infnity er se .the idea of infnity0 )ut
of ;hat ?egel called the ,fnite, or ,)ad infnite, secifcally* the endless
=iteration of the same= .22< cf. ?egel 24:"48 Esection 34"3@F0. Something
)ecomes another< this other is itself something< therefore it like;ise
)ecomes an other, and so on ad infnitum.= .?egel 24: E34F< translation
slightly modifed0. Rotman does not deny a =transcendentally mysterious
infnitude= so much as set it oC a)solutely from =our actual exerience of
iteration= .22< see 286 n. 250. !his interrogation of natural num)er,s
endlessness .corresonding to a ,givenness,0 is relaced )y a hysically
limited coming into )eing, determined )y the em)odied 'gent.
!he Russian mathematician 7ikolai Lo)achevsky u)lished his treatise on
7on"$uclidean +eometry in 285L, in ;hat is no; seen as a maDor turning
oint in the history of modern mathematical thought. But non"$uclidean
thinking had already catured the attention of non"mathematicians, ;riters
like (leist .=Kn the -arionettetheatre=0 and, at the end of the century,
Rostoevsky .!he Brothers (aramazov 0. %t could )e said that non"$uclidean
mathematics is in rincile virtually as old as $uclidean mathematics,
against ;hich it defnes itself. %n other ;ords, ;hat Rotman descri)es is a
relatively rofound eistemological shift that is not contingent so much on
the conJuence of certain historical factors as on ;hat he sees as the
immense existential ressure exerted on the su)Dect )y the re"existent
order that is the ,givenness, of num)er, and the unfathoma)le rosect of
endlessly iterated integers stretching oC into infnity. Rotman does not need
to disrove $uclid,s theory of asymtotic arallels, for examle, to ostulate
a non"$uclidean geometry< this otentially unlimited line of num)ers is
adeGuate* rather than stretching infnitely in either direction .i.e. on the
,lus, or ,minus, side of zero0, this line .the temoral x"axis on a grah0 in
Rotman,s schema Dust ,eters out, into non"existence .=an entroic
diminuendo=0. %n this resect, Rotman does not .or chooses not to0 see the
full imlications of a non"$uclidean system.
Rotman,s =non"$uclidean arithmetic= urorts to )e anti"/latonic, anti"
metahysical, a"theistic, non"sychologistic, and non"relativistic.
Hurthermore, although Rotman admits that his account of mathematics is
=undenia)lyconstructivist= .550, it also dearts from the constructivist line in
such imortant resects as the Guestion of num)er,s coming into )eing .540.
't the same time, Rotman ositions his thinking a)out language in general
;ithin the ,conJict, )et;een =the so"called continental outlook dominated )y
7ietzsche, ?usserl, ?eidegger, >ittgenstein, and Rerrida= and the current
,'nglo"'merican, =analytic mindset associated ;ith E+ottlo)F Hrege, Bertrand
Russell, and their emiricist fore)ears= .2L0. !hat is, the slogan =Language
seaks man into the ;orld= versus =-an seaks language a)out the ;orld.=
!o say that Rotman leans to;ard the latter, ho;ever, is not to suggest that
his re"conceived mathematics is also a straightfor;ard reinstatement of
,man.,
%n his second chater .=Language=0 Rotman oses the Guestion as to
;hether mathematics can )e considered a language, ;hich, from a
conventional semiotic ersective, may )e considered rhetorical< that is to
say mathematics may not )e ;hat Rotman calls a ,natural language,, )ut it
is a signifying ractice, a sign system .see 5:C0. Rotman,s insistent anti"
sychologism is redicated on his semiotics* for him mathematics is
irreduci)ly ;ritten, a series of marks made )y the em)odied mathematician,
ho;ever ,idealized, .Rotman,s ;ord0* =mathematical language and discourse
deal in, are oriented to;ard, and are ,a)out, mathematicians, o;n
inscritional activities< so that, if one insists on using the term, mathematics
might )e said to ,refer, .like music0 to nothing other than itself= .590. Kn this
)asis Rotman argues that mathematics, as a signifying ractice, =;ould
raidly )ecome unintelligi)le= ;ere it not for its as it ;ere arasitic .my
;ord0 relation to ;hat he calls a ,,natural,, non"mathematical host
language.=
Rotman,s assertion of mathematics, fundamental ,;rittenness, has its
antecedent of course in Kf +rammatology .23:L0, ;here Rerrida invokes
theoretical mathematics as exemlary of a non"honetic ,language,, one
;hich does not deend and has never deended on the actual or
metahysical resence of a signifying intention .Rerrida 23:L* 260. %n a long
note, Rotman makes exlicit the connection )et;een his #odeMmeta#ode
oosition and Rerrida,s characterization of the relation of ;riting to seech
as ,secondary, and ,sulementary,, =inside a logocentricized >estern
thought,= to use Rotman,s formulation. ?o;ever, Rotman claims that his
analysis )ears an inverse relation to the recets of grammatology* =E;hatF
oerates in mathematics is not logocentrism, not the rivileging of seech
over ;riting, of rimary self"resence over a desised secondarity, )ut the
reverse* a form of grahocentrism, the rivileging of the formal ;riting of
the #ode over an elimina)le, theoretically unnecessary " eihenomenal "
meta#ode= .28@ n. 580. Rotman aears to overlook the fact that Rerrida
;as talking a)out not Dust =alha)etic ;riting= ;hen he singled out
mathematics as the model of a non"hono"logocentric, language, =untainted
)y the metahysics of resence= .28@ n. 580. %n a long note, Rotman
maintains that the thrust of his essay is ultimately against Rerrida,s
concetion of mathematics as Guintessentially ;ritten, to;ard the locating
of =a deely metahysical rincile at ;ork ;ithin mathematics, current
concetion of ,num)er, )ut also to reinstate the )ody and the su)Dect ;ith
their talk, noise, and hysics of resence onto the mathematical scene=
.28@ n. 580. ?e ;ould root out metahysical resence in order to )etter
reinstate hysical resence in mathematics. !he recise nature of the
roosed su)Dect,s ideal, non"metahysical, em)odiedresence is never
adeGuately exlained.
%n discussing mathematical ,language, or signs, Rotman exlains that he is
referring to =ideograms in the usual sense of ;ritten characters conveying,
invoking, or denoting concetual content " signifying " through their grahic
identity, as visually resented marks= .5L0. Rotman singles out the
ideograms ,6, and ,... , as occuying a =more rimitive and originary
signifying level= and as therefore underinning arithmetic counting .6, 2, 5,
4... 0. %t is common kno;ledge ho;ever, as Rotman himself exlains in his
earlier )ook, Signifying 7othing* !he Semiotics of Bero, that there ;as
counting in this sense of arithmetic rogression or ,tallying,, long )efore the
introduction of zero, ;hich served to oen u ;hole ne; vistas of
calculation and numerical reresentation. !he oint that Rotman does not
make is that it ;as the incetion of zero that ermitted the reresentation,
and thus in a certain sense the concetualization, of ositive infnity. !hat is,
the introduction of ,6, ;as a rereGuisite for the introduction of ,... , as a
mathematical ideogram. Rotman does not ursue this causal relation in the
ne; )ook.
Sia summaries of the theories of Saussure, /eirce and, to a lesser extent
Benveniste, Rotman Jeshes out his earlier line a)out =language seaking
man into the ;orld= .2L0, in so far as su)Dectivity is constituted in the
individual language"user,s aroriation of re"existent indexical forms
.most nota)ly ,%,0 to defne himMherself in relation to other users .,you,0,
;ithin a secifc satio"temoral hysical context .,here,, ,no;,, ,this,0 .460.
%n Rotman,s reading, the semiotic su)Dect is still an a)stract ,tye,, and
su)Dectivity therefore something ,there, rior to the situated hysicality of
the seaker .his ,erson,, as Benveniste says E46F0.
Rotman,s third chater considers the infnite in relation to the fnite, moving
a;ay in his usage temorarily from the mathematical infnite to something
more metahysical .430. %n a note, ho;ever, he seeks to distance his usage
of the infnite from ?egel,s insistence on a ,)ad, infnite that is =conditioned,
concetually limited,= and )y defnition fnite .286 n. 250. Rotman,s
rotestations aside, it remains unclear ho; the mathematical infnite he
ela)orates diCers from ?egel,s )ad infnite, articularly in light of his
o)session ;ith the ideogrammatic infnite .,... ,0, and ;ith its limitation or
,fnitization, )y the ,resence, of the )ody of the counting su)Dect. Rotman
reDects the goodM)ad distinction .and its echoes in contemorary
mathematics0 on the grounds that it reresents =the inevita)le return of an
unackno;ledged and )uried theism= .286 n. 250. !his ,theism, is most
o)viously ,)uried, )eneath the corollary to the )ad infnite< the a)solute
infnite ;hich ?egel aohatically )ut rather mean"siritedly descri)es as =a
;retched neither"one"thing"nor"another= .?egel 248 E39F0.
Rotman gives a;ay his osition vis"a"vis the infnite as source of
=inconsistencies, contradictions, aradoxes, antinomies, and other
roductions of discourse intolera)le to mathematical reasoning= .430* it
lainly makes him nervous. %n this vein, Rotman traces the imact of Beno,s
aradoxes on su)seGuent mathematical thought. Kn the one hand, there is
a distrust of motion, )ased on infnite divisi)ility and infnitesimal Guantities
" in other ;ords the familiar stadium and arro; aradoxes " and on the other
hand a distrust of the very oosite, =an infnitely straight line,= ;hich gave
rise to $uclid,s arallel line axiom, ;herein =arallel straight lines are
straight lines ;hich, )eing in the same lane and )eingroduced indefnitely
in )oth directions, do not meet one another in either direction= .Rosenfeld
4@0 .960.
Rotman forges ahead in his Guest to formulate a critiGue of the endless
iteration of counting ;hich remains ;ithin =a Guite narro;ly dra;n
concetion of the rational= .@90, and thus aves the ;ay for the emergence
of non"$uclidean arithmetics ;hich allo;s for a kind of closure .@L0. 7on"
$uclidean num)ers are themselves, in Rotman,s vie;, a function of the
entroic hysical universe .rather than the other ;ay around0, and as such
do not )ehave in the redicta)le and ,ure, manner of the ,natural, num)ers
of $uclidean arithmetic. Rotman allo;s for the ossi)ility ho;ever that his
esta)lishing the ossi)ility of denying the ad infnitum rincile is )y no
means =to )e taken as a reudiation of the classically conceived $uclidean
infnite as such= .@80. ?e readily admits that, from the contemorary,
/latonist or constructivist vie;oint, the adotion of a non"$uclidean
mathematics resents no =real challenge to the idea of infnity= .@80. '
,$uclidean, system contains ;ithin itself the ground for the reresentation of
the unreresenta)le .infnity, +od, !ruth " an aesthetic of the su)lime0,
;hereas a ,non"$uclidean, system like Rotman,s rovides the language, the
metahorics, for the reresentation only of a fnite, exeriential reality of a
unitary, em)odied consciousness ;ithin the theoretically kno;a)le hysical
universe< in short, a henomenology of a counting Su)Dect ;ithout the ideal
term of an ,a)solute sirit., .L60.
Hollo;ing Rotman,s reasoning, time is to arithmetic .counting and
recounting0 ;hat sace is to geometry and fguration .L60 .thus the further
analogy could )e made " as it in fact is )y Rotman " of arithmetic to logic as
geometry to rhetoric Ee.g. L8F0. !his stark distinction )lurs, ho;ever* for
counting to unfold, the satial oeration of diCerential disrution must
occur< the iteration of num)ers, as in ver)al language, deends on
diCerence, ;hich is, as Rerrida ointed out, satial in its functioning .Rerrida
23:L0. Rotman is therefore too dogmatic in his contention that =counting,
ho;ever idealized, is a temoral rocess.= %t ;as to escae such strictly
)inary thinking that Rerrida coined diCTrance , ;hose eCects are neither
exclusively temoral nor satial, redicated on an a)sence ;hich has no
corresonding resence to negate it. !he a)sence, the eCect of the trace, in
diCTrance is irreduci)le, )ut Rotman,s refashioned mathematics is
redicated on ;hat might )e called an irreduci)le resence .cf. 28@ n. 580.
's Rotman remarks in the next chater, =mathematical logic is inseara)le
from a secies of rhetoric= .L80, and rhetoric, ;ith the ,ersuasional,
emhasis Rotman gives it here, suggests a relatively traditional model of
seaker and audience in a relationshi of mutual resence, ho;ever
,attenuated, or idealized. %n this sense, the one ,doing, mathematics is
analogous to the seaker, using his or her ;hole )ody in the reertoire of
,communicative acts, that constitutes rhetoric " and a very strange ;ay of
,doing, mathematics.
Rotman fnally oses the Guestion at the crux of his thesis* ;hat is the
nature of the relation )et;een =the emirically constituted, cororeal
mathematical su)Dect ;ho sits do;n to read, ;rite, and count mathematical
signs,= and the fctive )eing, the =imagined simulacrum,= Rotman osits ;ho
is the one ;ho actually erforms the endless countingA .L50. !his Guestion
never receives a satisfactorily clear ans;er, ;hich hamers Rotman,s o;n
ersuasiveness at key oints.
!he foregoing Guestion leads, in the next chater .=$xerimental !hought=0,
directly into Rotman,s advocation of the mathematical thought exeriment
as the most via)le means of exloring this relation )et;een su)Dect and
agent .LL0. Rotman sees thought exeriments as germane to the ractice of
mathematics .L:0. !heir most signifcant function is to eCect a shift from the
actual to the virtual, from exerience to the imagining of exerience .L80,
recalling the earlier analogy of the triartite dreaming su)Dect. !he a)sence
of =familiar indexical signs= in the #ode is evidence, for Rotman, of a
centuries"old, formalist, aotroaic eCacing of any satio"temorally
locata)le su)Dect .:40. Rotman sees this as a concerted eCort to construct
an %"less, metahysical mathematical su)Dect, in an =al;ays"already there
resent* a timeless voice from no one and from no;here= .:90. %n eCect, the
/erson,s task is to reort on and interret the relation )et;een Su)Dect and
'gent .=imaginer and its imago=0< the relative degree of ,similitude, )et;een
these t;o on ;hich the Su)Dect, as =idealization of the /erson,= cannot
comment, having no access to the =indexical self"descrition= rovided )y
the meta#ode .:80. Rotman ;ould have us )elieve in a su)Dect that is
already there, already constituted and em)odied, and yet una)le to refer to
itself reJexively .if it ;ere ,merely, an a)stract mathematical su)Dect, this
;ould not )e a ro)lem0. Knce again, Rotman notes the isomorhic
resem)lance this model )ears to that of the dream, ;ith the single roviso
that =mathematics deals in ;aking dreams,= for the likely reason that ,real,
dreams are not the direct roduct of rational consciousness. !o use the
analogy of the dream Gua dream ;ould )e to allo; for the ossi)ility
.ho;ever fgurative0 of an unconscious function, and therefore of a ,ground,
as a)yssal as the zero"infnite diCerential is for mathematics.
!he irony of his triadic model, ;hich Rotman seems to areciate, is that
the Su)Dect,s cororeal ,resence, ;ithin the circuit is entirely metahorical,
even ,ideal,, only in terms of a diCerent ideal order than its idealized roxy,
the 'gent .8L0. !he 'gent is more ideal, the /erson less so* the circuit in its
entirety is an a)straction, a fction .320. !his raises a num)er of interesting
Guestions, such as ;hat is the nature of idealized cororealityA .the Su)Dect
has =an idealized )ut not nonexistent )ody E266F=0 >hy should the su)Dect
)e mortalA Rotman asks .350. !he 'gent, =if it is to erform the oerations
imagined for it )y the Su)Dect, ;ill not merely exhi)it some idealized version
of the Su)Dect,s cororeality, )ut ;ill ossess no hysical resence
;hatsoever. %t ;ill )e a ghost= .340. %t seems that the only reason this
Su)Dect needs to )e em)odied at all is to set it oC from the 'gent it dreams
u to erform tasks the Su)Dect is revented from erforming )ecause it is
em)odied and therefore mortal. !his, at least, might )e the o)vious
conclusion. Rotman, though, is determined to use the Su)Dect,s cororeality
to limit the 'gent,s ideally attenuated .i.e. metahorical0 cororeality .390,
such that the 'gent =cannot )e allo;ed to erform any action that is not
caa)le " otentially " of )eing realized, of )eing materially instantiated and
made actual ;ithin the hysical universe inha)ited )y the su)Dect= .390. !his
is )ecause =asking an 'gent to erform inherently nonrealiza)le actions, is
to invoke a )eing ;ho moves in a universe other than the one ;e " and all
conceiva)le mathematical Su)Dects " occuy= .390* a )eing a)le to act
according to $uclidean hysical la;s. ?ence the attention aid to the degree
of similarity in the relation )et;een Su)Dect and 'gent. !his is a crucial
moment in Rotman,sargument* =the enveloe of the Su)Dect,s attenuated
cororeality is simly every imagined action for ;hich it is not imossi)le
that it )e instantiated and )ecome actual= .3@0. %n other ;ords, any rocess
of otentially infnite duration, such as endless counting, ;ould )e ruled out.
Rotman,s reinterretation of iteration demands that =the ideogram of
indefnite continuation " the ,... , " = )e re;ritten to signal the ne; limit
associated ;ith it* ,... U,. !he latter is the sign for the limit of ,mechanical
dissiation, .2630, ;hich alies to the automaton"'gent< Rotman also
rovides another sign ,... V,, for the Su)Dect,s =cognitive fade"out into
unintelligi)ility= .2630. Rotman,s Dustifcation for imosing this seemingly
ar)itrary limit is that, unlike the 'gent .not a true agent at all0 =;hat the
Su)Dect does must )e intelligi)le, intersu)Dectively interreta)le in terms of
signs= .26@0. Rotman,s model makes no rovision for the unintelligi)le,
irrational, unthinka)le, imossi)le, or unkno;a)le. !hus he imoses this
,limit of intelligi)ility,, =the rincile of this"universe realiza)ility= .26L0, the
,U,, ;hich, he maintains, is very familiar in =nonmathematical situations=
.26@0. ?ere, Rotman has recourse to =ercetual sychology,= in a slight
dearture from his other;ise un;avering focus on the )ody.
Hor Rotman, then, mathematics and infnity )ecome incomati)le )ecause
henomenology and infnity are already in a sense mutually exclusive< that
is to say, the rosect of indefnite iteration on the ,meta", model .stories"
;ithin"stories< lays";ithin"lays< exonents";ithin"exonents, adding u to
hyerexonents< in short, any manner of code0 soon )reaks do;n into
unintelligi)ility, uncogniza)ility .2680. Rotman sums u the inherently
rhetorical nature of this sort of seculation* =one can no more exhi)it or
make manifest such a limit than think the unthinka)le or utter the ineCa)le=
.2680. He; sentences in the )ook )etter exress Rotman,s staunchly
rationalist attitude vis"a"vis the negative, ;hich might have )een some;hat
disaointing, had his real interest actually )een infnity. 's he states at the
end of this chater* =EtheF ;hole account here srings from a semiotically
)ased refusal to accet the currently availa)le exlanations " in fact, lack of
exlanations " as to ho; the natural num)ers come into the ;orld to )e
humanly o)served and maniulated= .2240.
!his is )y no means to suggest that Rotman is ,;rong, in ;hat he says a)out
cognition,s ,resistance, to meta"iteration ast a certain level .2630. Rotman
insists that he is not in these examles rehearsing the neo"heraldic mise"en"
a)ime , ;hich he ;ants to restrict to the domain of visual reresentation< a
move ;hich is not only re"emted )y the ;idesread alication of this
term throughout literary studies .for examle0, )ut it remains unclear ;hy
the examles he rovides from other ,codes, .seech, ;riting, arithmetic
E26:F0 are su)stantively diCerent from that of a ainting";ithin"a"ainting,
and so on. $ven more than this, mise"en"a)ime,s vertiginous structure
imlies a otentially endless iterating continuation in either direction* a
classic instance of .)0ad infnitum in ractice .2630.
Rotman is also adamant that his cognitive limit"designation .,V,0 not )e
taken for a reinstatement of the (antian transcendental limit. !he rationale
)ehind this denial oCers insight into the ostensi)ly anti"metahysical Guality
of Rotman,s model* =for the #ode of mathematics the cogniza)le is neither
more nor less than the sym)oliza)le, since the inseara)ility of ideas from
their inscrition, of signifedsfrom signifers, inherent in mathematical
activity, forces one to coule ;hat is imagina)le ;ith the intersu)Dective
roduction and exchange of ;ritten signs= .2260. 'n em)racing of the most
literal sense of Rerrida,s =il n,y a as d,hors"texte .= $ven the imagination is
su)Dect to a limit determined )y ;hat is imagina)le for the Su)Dect as the
idealization of the /erson .226"220.
%n exloring the ossi)ility of a non"$uclidean arithmetic, Rotman uses the
o)vious analogy of non"$uclidean geometry, ;hose rovenance is discussed
a)ove. ?e ;onders =;hether one can treat geometry,s relation to its o)Dect
as a aradigm for arithmetic,s relation to its o)Dect= .2280. !his is highly
ro)lematic* frst of all, Rotman Jatly states that geometry,s ,o)Dect, is
=extension in sace,= ;hereas arithmetic,s is =assage through time.= %f the
frst ;ere acceta)le under certain circumstances, the second is simly
unacceta)le. /erhas Rotman intends something else )y ,o)Dect,< other;ise
it ;ould seem that =assage through time= has to do rather ;ith the
su)Dect,s exerience of using arithmetic, ;here counting, say, transires
over time, in a manner directly analogous to reading. !he latter, in so far as
it deends on a materially resent text, has its o;n )uilt"in limit function*
reading stos either artifcially, ;hen the age or )ook or articular story
comes to an end, or ;hen the reader gets tired or has to do something else.
!his ;ould corresond to Rotman,s realiza)ility limit. Kn the macro" level,
the fact that there is a fnite num)er of legi)le texts in the ;orld .relative to
the life"san of a single reader0 determines the eGuivalent of the cognitive
limit function. But erhas reading is not the )est analogy for counting, at
least not from Rotman,s oint"of"vie;* erhas ;riting is )etter< )ut even
;riting .as narrating, re"counting0, as suggested a)ove, has its internally"
instituted, conventionalized means of coming to an end, ho;ever ar)itrary.
'nd of course it is only fair to recall that Rotman,s counting su)Dect is
secifc to mathematics, and could not )e exected to have anything to say
to a ;riting or reading su)Dect at a arty " let alone )ehave like one "
articularly not in the a)sence of indexical exressions, like ,%.,
%n discussing $uclid,s unease a)out his o;n axiom of arallels, Rotman
chooses to ignore the ,trou)lesome, =idea of a straight line )eing rolonged
infnitely far= .2230. ?e refuses to ackno;ledge that this ,unease, may have
)een the result of the ossi)ility, contrary to reason and logic, of the t;o
asymtotic lines eventually meeting, at a oint that cannot )e formulated in
the terms of either $uclidean geometry or the (antian categories, or
;hatever< a oint that is neither satial nor temoral< that is not a oint,
roerly seaking< that is imossi)le, inconceiva)le, and so forth. Rotman
contends that the arithmetical ,cognate, to the arallel axiom is the ad
infnitum rincile itself .2560. !here is no reason to disagree ;ith this
conclusion, although in his exlanation Rotman does not clarify the most
o)vious )asis for the comarison* unending counting, like an endless
straight line, is unthinka)le< )oth are in eCect metahors for a metahysical
,reality, inaccessi)le to thought. 'nd, like the line, the iterating series of
num)ers ;ill end u curving )ack uon itself, in defance of $uclidean
recets as much as the hysical la;s that govern the universe* ;hat
Rotman is arguing for here is, after all, a henomenology as it is a model for
o)Dective ,reality.,
>hat Rotman fails to mention is that 'ristotle and ?egel are not the only
hilosohers to have theorized diCering orders of infnity< an excusa)le
omission,given the roclaimed mathematico"semiotic focus of his
discussion. %n the eriod of eistemological uheaval that resulted in ;hat
Blumen)erg has termed ,the modern age,, there ;as a trend of thought that
had numerous oints of contact .Rescartes, /ascal0 ;ith the hilosohical
,mainstream, )ut remained for a variety of reasons on the margins.
Blumen)erg himself singles out t;o thinkers, +iordano Bruno and 7icholas
#usanus, as )eing of signal imortance in the transition from the remodern
to the modern. #usanus, the more ,medieval, of the t;o, ;as a )isho,
)ureaucrat, theologian, and mathematician, ;ith a ,scientifc, cast of mind
that makes him one of the frst ,modern, thinkers, at once seminal and
liminal. But it is #usanus,s lace in the history of mathematics that Dustifes
his mention here. >hat kees him in the eyes of some from fully crossing
the threshold into modernity is, among other things, his use of mathematics
" secifcally geometry " to render an aroximation of ;hat is other;ise
a)solutely unreresenta)le* +od,s infnite )eing.
'rgua)ly, and erhas aradoxically, one of the most comelling asects of
#usanus,s thought is his symathy ;ith negative theology, and the manner
in ;hich he com)ines its language and logic ;ith a geometrical
metahorics. 1nlike the advocates of conventional, aOrmative theology,
#usanus,s use of geometry is redicated on a relation of a)solute non"
resem)lance )et;een the form and ;hat it ,reresents., !here is an
un)ridgea)le distance )et;een, say, a straight line and the erfect,
infnitely straight line that is +od. Hor #usanus, every fnite line artakes of
curvature, since if it ;ere really, ,maximally, straight it ;ould )e the
=maximum, infnite line= .there can )e only one0, a change ;hich, on the
rhetorical level .as oosed to the concetual0 amounts to a lea from the
as it ;ere ,concretely sym)olic, into ure metahor .Rocta %gnorantia L40.
!he straight line in geometry, for that matter, is never actually straight, as it
is inescaa)ly determined )y ;hat might )e called the non"$uclidean
universe of fallen creation. %n the created ;orld, all lines are crooked. !he
same holds for more comlex geometrical fgures* one that is in fact used in
the Rocta %gnorantia is the olygon inscri)ed ;ithin a circle .Rocta
%gnorantia 2. 4< 4. 2< 4. 90. Hor #usanus, this comound fgure reresents the
incommensura)le diCerence )et;een the intellect and truth< as the num)er
of the olygon,s sides increases, it gro;s increasingly similar to the circle,
;ithout ever achieving identity ;ith it " ;ithout, in short, ever )ecoming
a)solutely circular. 'nd this irreduci)le diCerence, as that ;hich searates
the intellect and truth, remains infnite, no matter ho; small the increments
searating the t;o aear to )ecome .see Rocta %gnorantia 2. 40.
Like /lato and many others, #usanus is =careful to distinguish the infnity of
the cosmos from that of +od= .?arries L0, )ut unlike /lato .and like +regory
of 7yssa< see )elo;0, #usanus recognizes a radical discontinuity )et;een
the t;o* the cosmos is ,rivatively infnite<, that is, =it lacks limits in ;hich it
can )e enclosed, ;hile the infnity of +od recludes all indeterminacy=
.i)id.0. !his is )y no means to suggest that #usanus articulated a vision of a
universe cut oC irremedia)ly from +od " this is a much more recent
develoment. !he infnity of the universe, in #usanus,s ;ords, =contrasts
;ith the infnity of +od )ecause it is due to a lack, ;hereas Ethe infnityF of
+od is due to an a)undance !hus, the infnity of matter is rivative, E)ut the
infnityF of +od is negative= .Rocta %gnorantia 5. 80..7ote 20
Rotman,s crucial mistake is in not recognizing .or at least not
ackno;ledging0 that geometry, esecially certain forms of anticiatory non"
$uclidean geometry, emloyed geometrical forms for a urose comletely
other than the reresentation of ;hat Rotman )lithely calls =the structure of
actual externally resented sace= .2560. 'nd this is not to have recourse to
a variation on classical infnitist mathematics< rather, it is to dra; attention
to an aohatic trend of thinking, grounded in the unthinka)ility of the
relation )et;een )eing and non")eing, created and uncreated .self and
otherA0 " the roto"diCTrance that +regory of 7yssa in the fourth century
named ,diastema ,* .7ote 50 the irreduci)le ga or interval )et;een the
reach of human cognition .;hat can )e kno;n0 and +od,s a)solute
unkno;a)ility as ;hat Levinas has called =Being )eyond )eing= .Levinas
23820. !he diastema,s determination is radically negative< it descri)es
neither one term or the other )ut the diCerential relation )et;een them,
grounded in unkno;a)ility..7ote 40 's a name for =the ga that searates
creation and #reator= .+regorios L:0, ;hich is )oth ontological and
eistemological, diastema is unam)iguously theological, )ut this does not
revent its logic from )eing aroriated and alied in other contexts in
;hich is faced the ro)lem of thinking something unthinka)le .;here
thinking, in Rotman,s terms, is reresenting0. %n other ;ords, ;here there is
no longer any Guestion of denying ontological continuity, the
eistemological discontinuity remains. !hus in terms of diCerent orders of
infnity, there is no )asis of resem)lance as there is for, say, /lato,s universe
of conditioned infnitude, created in imitation of the eternal attern.
>hat ;e receive from this ersistent strain of aohatic thought, then, is a
means of thinking a)out not merely t;o diCerent orders of infnity, )ut
a)out t;o diCerent orders of things " mutually contradictory,
incommensura)le " at the same time< that is, of thinking a)out their relation,
the irreduci)le sace )et;een the fnite and the infnite .or fnitely infnite
and negatively infnite0, since consciousness, )eing fnite, remains
necessarily on one side. !he great insight of this aohatically"inJected
strain of thought is that, if the a)solute cannot )e thought in itself .i.e. if it is
no longer an otion for thought0, then the relation can, in the ositive form
of a fgure for an irreduci)le ga, ;hich, no matter ho; close the mind
seems to come to an arehension of the a)solute, remains uncrossa)le
)ecause it is fnite and )ounded on one side, and un)ounded and infnite on
the other. %n other ;ords, as an alternative to Rotman,s alternative, it is not
necessary to ;orry a)out the infnite at all.
!o;ards the end of the )ook Rotman seems to come almost full"circle, in an
ackno;ledgement of the inescaa)ility of $uclidean concets on the
grounds of an admittedly du)ious ,intuitive o)viousness, .25:0* =evidently,
realiza)le arithmetic is radically non "$uclidean. But against this diCerence
there is also an identity* any acceta)le understanding of num)er has to )e
locally $uclidean= .25:0. Rotman suggests that therefore there are t;o
orders of num)er, one ,ideal, .the ,classical ordinals,0 and one ,realiza)le,,
)ut then ;onders ho; one ;ould )e a)le to tell the ,diCerence, )et;een
them* =does it not seem that counting to ten on our fngers is counting to
ten " ;hether the counting is rolonged )eyond 26U or 26 )y a realiza)le
'gent or )y a classical ad infnitum agent a)le to count foreverA= .2580
Rotman identifes a ,diCerence, or ,divergence, here, )et;een =classical
andrealiza)le= arithmetical la;s .2580.
!he ideogram ,V, denotes the limit of ;hat makes sense on a universal
level< ,U, denotes the corresonding limit on a su)Dective level. #an the limit
sym)olized )y V )e thought of as cognate ;ith the #usan notion of a
,rivative infnite,A .i.e. not as a limit"function of the hysical universe )ut of
;hat is ,ossi)le, ;ithin that universe0. ' rincile .if unstated0 goal of
Rotman,s thesis seems to )e the elimination of contradiction and aradox,
of undecida)ility in any guise .eg. 246"420. %n other ;ords, Rotman,s notion
of a =realiza)le arithmetic= is =locally $uclidean,= and =radically non"
$uclidean= only on a ,glo)al scale, .252"460. Rotman,s mathematical model,
as fundamentally ,;ritten,, conforms ;ith neither the hono"logocentric nor
the grammatological .;here each ,iteration, of an utterance, ;ritten or
soken, is a ne; signifying event conditioned )y its context and
indeendent of a resent signifying intention as roof of origin0< rather,
Rotman argues for a mathematics in ;hich ;riting and thinking are
interdeendent to the extent that the Su)Dect,s ,active resence, " not
merely the intention )ut the )ody itself " is reGuired for any mathematical
act to take lace .2940. !hat is, for Rotman, each imlementation of
mathematical signs is a uniGue and originary event, regardless of the
iterative, conventional nature of these signs, ;hich Rotman in fact
ackno;ledges .296"920. Kn the other hand, Rotman does not allo; for the
rimacy of either the ;orld or mathematics as a)solute origin< the ;orld,
al;ays already ,mathematized,, rovides mathematics ;ith its satio"
temoral model .295"990. Rotman identifes an ,oscillation, .=not confned to
mathematical signs, )ut having a articular force for them=0 )et;een the
signifer,s coexistence as material mark and as =general, idealized, non"
materially resented tye = .2990. 7either recedes the other, nor have they
existed in this state of mutual deendence forever, since that ;ould
contravene the non"$uclidean nature of the system. !his is the only
concession Rotman makes to any sort of ,irrationality, or irresolva)ility,
referring to ground his model in ;hat is eCectively the henomenology of
the singular mathematical Su)Dect, =a semiotic agency made availa)le )y
the code " engaged in the dreaming of its o;n numerical )oundaries= .29@0.
Rotman makes exlicit the connection )et;een this Su)Dect and
henomenological exerience of the ;orld in terms of his discussion of time*
the time that the Su)Dect inha)its, he states, is the same as that inha)ited
)y =any reader of this text= .29:0.
Rotman admits to having deli)erately excluded from his model of the
.dreaming0 mathematical Su)Dect any level or dimension of
unconsciousness, and that this is an attemt to reress .consciouslyA0 ;hat
is otentially one of the most interesting asects of a roDect of denying
infnity. %n admitting this, Rotman only dra;s attention to ;hat amounts to
the .unintentional0 dialectical negation of infnity* as he admits ;ithout
;anting to, the o)Dect of reression emerges as ;hat is most interesting
.234 n. @50.
7otes
20 Hor a further exlanation as to ;hy #usanus,s universe is not really
infnite .and a valiant attemt at a clarifcation of #usanus,s comlex and
often confusing use of terms like ,rivatively, and ,negatively, infnite0, see
?okins 23:8* 46"45. #f. Rescartes,s letter to #hanut of L &une 2L9:, in
;hich he cites #usanus on the issue of the =indefnite extension= of the
universe over against the infnity of +od .Rescartes 5520.
Back to ;here you left oC.
50 =>e have no $nglish ;ord )y ;hich to translate diastema. !o translate it
as ga or interval could )e to miss out its meaning of extendedness=
.+regorios :@0. +regorios oints out that diastema has )een translated into
Hrench as ,esacement ,, suggestive at once of sacing, diCerence and
movement .i)id.0.
Back to ;here you left oC.
40 % o;e this o)servation to #harles Lock.
Back to ;here you left oC.
References
Blumen)erg, ?ans .238@0 !he Legitimacy of the -odern 'ge. Ro)ert -
>allace .trans.0 #am)ridge, -ass. and London* -%! /ress.
Borges, &orge Luis .23L90 ='vatars of the !ortoise.= La)yrinths. Ronald '.
Wates and &ames $. %r)y .eds.0. 7e; Work* 7e; Rirections* 565"568.
Rerrida, &acGues .23830 $dmund ?usserl,s =Krigin of +eometry=* 'n
%ntroduction. &ohn /. Leavey, &r. .trans.0. Lincoln and London* 1niversity of
7e)raska, 2383.
""" .23:L0 Kf +rammatology. +ayatri Sivak .trans.0. Baltimore and London*
&ohns ?okins.
Rescartes, RTne .23:60 /hilosohical Letters. 'nthony (enny .trans. and
ed.0. Kxford* #larendon.
+regorios, /aulos -ar .23880 #osmic -an* !he Rivine /resence " !he
!heology of St. +regory of 7yssa. 7e; Work* /aragon ?ouse.
?arries, (arsten .23:@0 =!he %nfnite Shere* #omments on the ?istory of a
-etahor.= &ournal of the ?istory of /hilosohy 24. 2 .&anuary0* @"2@.
?egel, +. >. H. ?egel,s Logic ./art % of the $ncycloedia of 28460. >illiam
>allace .trans.0. Kxford* #larendon, 23:@.
?okins, &aser .23:80 ' #oncise %ntroduction to the /hilosohy of 7icholas
of #usa. -inneaolis* 1niversity of -innesota.
""" .trans.0 .23360 7icholas of #usa Kn Learned %gnorance* ' !ranslation and
'raisal of Re Rocta %gnorantia. -inneaolis* 'rthur &. Banning.
Levinas, $mmanuel .23820 Kther;ise than Being, or Beyond $ssence.
'lhonso Lingis .trans0. ?ingham, -ass.* (lu;er 'cademic.
Lock, #. &. S. .23350 =!exts of the Body and the -ind* Semiotics and the
Hace.= E1nu)lishedF.
/lato. !imaeus and #ritias. London* /enguin, 23:2.
Rosenfeld, B. '. .23880 ' ?istory of 7on"$uclidean +eometry* $volution of
the #oncet of a +eometric Sace. ')e Shenitzer .trans.0. 7e; Work, Berlin,
etc.*Sringer Serlag.
Rotman, Brian .238:0 Signifying 7othing* !he Semiotics of Bero London*
-acmillan.
Russell &. '. (il)ourn is a graduate student in the #entre for #omarative
Literature at the 1niversity of !oronto. ?is thesis deals ;ith the relationshi
)et;een negative theology and the modern novel, and he also ;orks on flm
and literature. Russell is currently teaching in the Literary Studies rogram
at Sictoria #ollege, 1. of !.