I wonder whether the principle--which is supposed to be distinctively Aristotelian--that deviance from nature is the result of an interruption of the interval from a terminus a quo to a terminus ad quem could have a common provenance with the Platonic-Socratic sense of the interruption of one work by another, which robs each of its crucial moment. Is a terminus ad quem a kairos?
I'll have to write something later contextualizing this question for those of you who are not picking up my psychic broadcast.
Before commenting on your final question, let me ask: to what Platonic-Socratic sense of interruption do you here refer? Is this to be found in a dialogue or are you referring to Derrida's account of Patocka's analysis of the Platonic incorporation/interruption of the mystagogical in Donner La Mort?
ReplyDeleteThe only other way I would interpret your question is as an account of the dialogic corpus as it proceeds, namely picking up the word in each succeeding dialogue by interrupting the previous one.
ReplyDeleteMe latin's not great--somethin' like "limit from" to "limit to which..."--which sounds faintly like an ordered series, aka Aristotle's noble ...teleology.
ReplyDeleteSo the squirrel who interrupts the "oak-tree-becoming" by eating the acorn--contra naturam! Nasty lil' devil
Serio, I don't quite understood how all the Aristotelian final causes of various natural events interacted. Sounds a bit pagan to me, like the 1000 names of Vishnu (low estimate).