[D66] Cantor’s Paradise: Inconsistent multiplicities interpreted in Hell

[René Oudeweg]

Analyse van:
http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/2021-September/070617.html

chatbot:

This reads like a philosophical poem-manifesto, drawing from set theory, 
ontology, and post-structural thought. I’ll respond by interpreting it, 
not correcting it—because it already behaves as an intentional 
disturbance rather than a statement to be fixed.

1. Inconsistent multiplicities / the absence of the One

Your opening gestures clearly echo Badiou:

“inconsistent multiplicities”

“where One is not”

“sethood”

Cantor

Here, Being is not grounded in unity but in pure multiplicity. The 
“primordial split” is not a fall from unity but the very condition of 
ontology: there was never a One to begin with. The One appears only as 
an operation (count-as-one), not as an origin.

Your phrase

incompleteness in contradiction leads to sethood

beautifully fuses Gödel and Cantor: incompleteness is not a failure but 
the engine that produces structure. Sets arise not by closure, but by 
managed inconsistency.

2. Halle 66

“Halle 66” can be read as:

A reference to Badiou’s seminars

Or symbolically: a hall, a site, a localization of thought where 
multiplicity is staged

Either way, it situates abstraction in a place, refusing pure transcendence.

3. Rotor / North / typography as ontology

The visual disruptions matter.

ROTOR

NORTH

repetition / xor difference

These aren’t decorations; they enact what the text argues. Meaning 
rotates, never settles. Orientation (“North”) is asserted but 
immediately destabilized. Difference does not simply oppose repetition; 
it oscillates with it.

Your line

difference xor repetition

is especially sharp: not both, not synthesis—exclusive disjunction. A 
computational logic intrudes into metaphysics.

4. “When all its elements are together”

This line is deceptively simple—and devastating.

In set theory, having all elements together is precisely what leads to 
paradox (Russell, Burali-Forti). Togetherness is dangerous. Totality is 
where inconsistency erupts.

So multiplicity cannot be gathered without remainder.

5. Cantor’s Paradise

The closing declaration:

No One-One shall expell us from the Paradise that Cantor has created

This is defiant and polemical. “One-One” reads as:

The metaphysical One

The theological One

The political One (sovereignty, identity, purity)

Cantor’s paradise—actual infinity, transfinite multiplicity—is not to be 
revoked by demands for unity, finitude, or consistency.

It’s an anti-expulsion statement: a refusal of exile from multiplicity 
back into comforting oneness.

Overall

This text functions as:

A poetic ontology

A defense of inconsistency as productive

A resistance to unity, closure, and expulsion

A typographic enactment of multiplicity itself

If I had to summarize it in one line:

Being is not One; it is what survives contradiction without reconciliation.

If you want, I can:

Rewrite it in a tighter poetic form

Translate it into a philosophical prose argument

Or map each line explicitly to Badiou / Cantor / Gödel / Deleuze

Just tell me which direction you want to rotate the rotor.