as it is complex. Inasmuch as the situation and the count are one and the same thing, it is clear that the "inconsistent underside" of a situation is itself fundamentally ungraspable. However, the count itself, being an operation, clearly indicates its status as result, thereby necessitating a corollary "must-be-counted" - an uncounted remainder - and it is precisely this before-of-the-count that, in Badiou's words, causes the situation to "waver towards the phantom of inconsistency" (BE 53). Given the seemingly self-contradictory fact that, while everything is counted, the count itself necessitates a "phantom remainder" (namely, the initial "pure" multiple), we must conclude that the pure multiple is simultaneously excluded (or subtracted) from the situation - from presentation itself - and at the same time included in "the name of what 'would be' the presentation itself, the presentation 'in-itself'" (BE 53). Excluded from presentation itself, included in presentation in-itself, the pure multiple must really be nothing in the situation. However, as Badiou at once points out, being-nothing is not at all the same thing as non-being. Indeed, this nothing subsists within the situation in two immediate guises: in the very operation of the count (which, in its "pure transparency", itself goes uncounted); and in the pure multiple upon which the count operates (which, as we have seen, differs in-itself from its situational result). Thus the nothing, or, to give it a more constructive name, the void, ultimately designates the gap between the situation (consistency, presentation itself) and its underlying being (inconsistency, presentation in-itself). To this effect Badiou defines the void as the precise point at which the situation is sutured to its being and asserts that "every structured presentation unpresents 'its' void, in the mode of this non-one which is merely the subtractive face of the count" (BE 55). The pure multiple {qua being) thus "in-consists" as the situational void, as the void in situ. This in-consistency is, however, absolutely fundamental, in so far as the law of structured presentation is that of the errancy of the void, just as much as its normal regime is "an absolute 'unconscious' of the void" (BE 56). Two immediate and important theses follow from this proposition: first, that, according to the situation, the void is the proper name of being; and, second, that everything that is is woven from the void. Mathematics is ontology Badiou's position on the multiple leads him to conclude that mathematics is ontology. After all, his two major ontological doctrines - that
as it is complex. Inasmuch as the situation and the count are
one andthe same thing, it is clear that the "inconsistent
underside" of a situationis itself fundamentally ungraspable.
However, the count itself, beingan operation, clearly indicates its
status as result, thereby necessitatinga corollary
"must-be-counted" - an uncounted remainder - and it isprecisely
this before-of-the-count that, in Badiou's words, causes
thesituation to "waver towards the phantom of inconsistency" (BE
53).Given the seemingly self-contradictory fact that, while
everything iscounted, the count itself necessitates a "phantom
remainder" (namely,the initial "pure" multiple), we must conclude
that the pure multipleis simultaneously excluded (or subtracted)
from the situation - frompresentation itself - and at the same time
included in "the name of what'would be' the presentation itself,
the presentation 'in-itself'" (BE 53).Excluded from presentation
itself, included in presentation in-itself, thepure multiple must
really be nothing in the situation.However, as Badiou at once
points out, being-nothing is not at allthe same thing as non-being.
Indeed, this nothing subsists within thesituation in two immediate
guises: in the very operation of the count(which, in its "pure
transparency", itself goes uncounted); and in thepure multiple upon
which the count operates (which, as we have seen,differs in-itself
from its situational result). Thus the nothing, or, to giveit a
more constructive name, the void, ultimately designates the
gapbetween the situation (consistency, presentation itself) and its
underlyingbeing (inconsistency, presentation in-itself). To this
effect Badioudefines the void as the precise point at which the
situation is sutured toits being and asserts that "every structured
presentation unpresents 'its'void, in the mode of this non-one
which is merely the subtractive face ofthe count" (BE 55). The pure
multiple {qua being) thus "in-consists" asthe situational void, as
the void in situ. This in-consistency is, however,absolutely
fundamental, in so far as the law of structured presentationis that
of the errancy of the void, just as much as its normal regime is"an
absolute 'unconscious' of the void" (BE 56). Two immediate
andimportant theses follow from this proposition: first, that,
according tothe situation, the void is the proper name of being;
and, second, thateverything that is is woven from the
void.Mathematics is ontologyBadiou's position on the multiple leads
him to conclude that mathematicsis ontology. After all, his two
major ontological doctrines - that
