Dear all, since I have no concrete idea of what Ben just said, I would
like to offer my take on the notion of a disjunction. I shall let
those who can understand both takes decide the relationship between
the two takes. I shall borrow some of my thoughts from the following
I begin with the following definition of disjunction: It is either the
act of breaking a connection or the state of being disconnected. My
first question would be one of asking why such a notion arose, and
why, especially, in relation to one's relation to oneself? The only
answer that makes sense to me is that there is an attempt to describe
an event that was registered as the breaking of that self-relation.
If that breaking also happened to be the act that revealed the
existence of that self-relation, which is to say, concretized it, then
the breaking could posit a remainder as a new self. It is here that I
would say that the notion of a disjunction is born. The either/or that
rises is either the old self that was not aware of its relation to
itself or the new self that is aware of its relation to itself. How
one so visited by such a disjunction, a disconnect engendered by the
breaking of a connection that reveals another connection, perhaps to
be described as subjectivity raised to the second power [place chuckle
here], then brings that revelation under the sway of their
understanding is another matter entirely.
That's my take. That's what I think when the notion of a disjunction
is tossed into my lap. Maybe Ben said that in other words, maybe not.
I don't know. I leave that to you to decide. willy