Identity is stabilised relation. Individuals do not precede collectives. Boundaries are not ontologically necessary. With these inversions in place, a seemingly mundane question becomes unexpectedly revealing: how do we count?
Counting feels straightforward. We see multiple things, assign numerals, and sum them. But this apparently simple act relies on assumptions we have already undermined.
The hidden dependency
Counting presupposes what it appears to measure. To assign “one, two, three,” there must first be discernible units. These units are not discovered in the wild; they are inferred. And inference requires:
-
A cut: Some distinction drawn in the field of potential to demarcate what counts as separate. Without a cut, the field is undifferentiated; numerals have nothing to latch onto.
-
Local stabilisation: The units must persist at least long enough to be individuated retrospectively. Ephemeral flickers of potential cannot be counted.
-
Perspective: The act of counting is perspectival. What one observer counts may differ from another, depending on the constraints and actualisations they track.
In other words, numeracy is derivative. Counting depends on cuts and stabilisations that occur before the numbers themselves enter the picture.
Counting is not neutral
This dependency has subtle but significant consequences:
-
Ontology: “Units” are not primitives. Numbers do not reveal pre-existing entities; they describe relational coherence.
-
Mathematics (philosophically): The natural numbers may appear universal, but their application presupposes prior structure — the collective field, perspectival cuts, and stabilised relations.
-
Biology: Counting cells, organisms, or social agents always presumes that individuation has been inferred after the fact. No enumeration can create the entity it counts.
-
Social statistics: Populations, census data, and economic units are constructed atop inferred stabilisations, not self-evident individuals.
Counting, often treated as innocent, is in fact a quietly complex act of retroactive individuation.
A deceptively powerful inversion
This insight strengthens the series’ cumulative argument:
-
Individuation is retrospective.
-
Collectives are primary potential.
-
Identity is stabilised relation.
-
Numeracy presupposes the cuts that create the appearance of individuals.
Each step quietly erodes assumptions about ontological primacy and independence. By the time a reader reaches this post, the notion of pre-existing individuals as measurable units has already been undermined.
Counting is no longer a simple exercise. It is a window into how relational potential actualises, stabilises, and is then described as “one, two, many.”
Forward
Having revealed the hidden machinery behind numeracy, the final post will examine the myth of the autonomous individual. Here, we will explain why autonomy persists as a concept, why it stabilises thought and social practice, and why it does so without any ontological foundation.
For now, hold this principle:
You do not count units to find them; you find units to count them.
The act of enumeration is always retrospective — dependent on cuts, stabilisations, and perspectives that precede it.
No comments:
Post a Comment