In celebration of the recent blog series The Ontology of the Cut and After Totality, we present this playful faculty dialogue. Through the voices of Professor Quillibrace, Mr Blottisham, and Miss Elowen Stray, the discussion highlights key concepts — refusal of totality, local presence, relational systems, and instantiation — while preserving a light, humorous tone. Footnotes offer guidance for readers who wish to follow the conceptual subtleties.
Characters:
Professor Quillibrace – dry, subtly humorous, master of relational architecture
Mr Blottisham – confident, impatient, obstinately uncomprehending
Miss Elowen Stray – curious, reflective, attuned to nuance
Notes in italics are explanatory footnotes for readers.
[Scene: Faculty lounge, papers and coffee cups scattered. The scholars have just read The Ontology of the Cut and After Totality.]
Quillibrace: Well, that was like watching a carefully choreographed dance of absence. One is aware of what is not there — yet the steps are precise.
Footnote: “Dance of absence” refers to the disciplined refusal of totality — absence is structured, not chaotic.
Blottisham: Absence? Really, Professor, is anyone going to just tell me what exists? All this talk of ‘possibilities’ and ‘cuts’ feels evasive.
Footnote: Blottisham represents the common impulse to demand totality or maximalism in ontology.
Stray: Not evasive. Perspective matters. The ontology is disciplined by instantiation, not by cataloguing everything.
Blottisham: Coherent? Either something exists or it doesn’t. How complicated can it be? We’re not baking a soufflé here.
Quillibrace: (dryly) But that’s precisely the soufflé, Blottisham. Ontology is about the rise, collapse, and necessary boundaries of what can occur, not a static list.
Footnote: “Soufflé” metaphorically indicates ontology’s delicate, structured relational dynamics.
Stray: Presence is perspectival. Local instantiations are fully real without global assembly.
Blottisham: Perspectival? Local? The universe is perspectival? Sounds like nonsense.
Quillibrace: Not nonsense. Architecture. Systems are relational constraints — the universe is not a completed inventory, but instantiations within relational frameworks are fully present.
Blottisham: Relational constraints… I just want a list!
Stray: That’s the inventory mistake. Systems guide possibility; they do not contain actuality. The focus is on relationship, not collection.
Blottisham: Beauty in relationships? I do not require beauty in ontology! I require answers! Totality! Counting!
Quillibrace: (smirking) Counting presumes a container. There is no container that can hold reality without category error. Instead: relational systems, cuts, instantiations.
Blottisham: Invisible cuts? Instantiations? I do not follow. Philosophy is a cruel joke.
Stray: Not a joke. A practice that enables reality to be understood without imposing impossible completion. The series is disciplined and generative.
Blottisham: Generative… discipline… I give up. Tea?
Quillibrace: Chin-chin. 🍷 Even if you surrender, the ontology endures.
Stray: Chin-chin. 🍷 To cuts, refusal, and presence.
Blottisham: (grumbling) Chin-chin… if only I understood what I’m toasting.
Footnote: The dialogue demonstrates how the two series distill complex ontological ideas into playful, accessible illustrations of refusal, perspective, and relational systems.
[Curtain falls. Quillibrace smirks; Stray reflects; Blottisham fetches more tea.]
No comments:
Post a Comment