Toward a Kantian Ontology of the Erection
next entry »
Dec. 1st, 2005 | 10:17 pm
The technotropic structure of masculogic is that of the derivation; that is, a deductive inference from parts to wholes. Parts are the "premises," while (w)holes are the "conclusions." The analyto-rational autopoietic suggests that phallogic is the quintessential "topic neutral" discipline, in that "discipline" is always a taming. In this case, the taming is of possibilities to realities of any text or intertext whatsoever, by means of "soundness."
To this end we have the soundness theorems of sentential and predicate phallogic, ergo:
"if X1. . .Xn |- Y, then X1. . .Xn |= Y."
The soundness of phallogic is the binary guarantee. The structure of phallogic is a bivalent monolethis. Through this bifurcation, the analyto-rationalist exercises his technopower over fuzzy, dialethic, and feminist logics of possibility and omnivalence.
The feminist logic of possibility is one which resists inexorability, and thus resists the essentializing power of the phallogic erection. In this logic of possibility, (which David K. Lewis calls possibilia, meaning 'idioverses') technocratic "derivation" is subsumed by a larger, more holistic seeing of the properties of valence; namely, truth-bearing. While the phallogician is constrained by propositional valence and calcified "fact," the gynologician focuses on possibility, which patterns a new cybernetics. Feminist logics, in this way, formally resist the logicism and architechtonic of Kantian erecto-idealism.
In the next few several posts, I will provide a hermeneutics of phallogocentric, analyto-rational discourse by deconstructing its "truest" exemplar: Kant. I will demonstrate that all Kantian explananda are a fetishization, as well as demonstrate through problematic method the erecto-centrism of the transcendental aesthetic and rational ontology, generally.