Interesting when you read a neat description of what you’ve been thinking about for such a long time now, and to see how it is related to the noumenal…
From Zizek’s “Ideology I: No Man is an Island” (http://www.lacan.com/zizwhiteriot.html)
“In his review of Badiou’s Ethics, Terry Eagleton wrote:
There is a paradox in the idea of transformation. If a transformation is deep-seated enough, it might also transform the very criteria by which we could identify it, thus making it unintelligible to us. But if it is intelligible, it might be because the transformation was not radical enough. If we can talk about the change then it is not full-blooded enough; but if it is full-blooded enough, it threatens to fall outside our comprehension. Change must presuppose continuity – a subject to whom the alteration occurs – if we are not to be left merely with two incommensurable states; but how can such continuity be compatible with revolutionary upheaval?
The properly Hegelian solution to this dilemma is that a truly radical change is self-relating: it changes the very coordinates by means of which we measure change. In other words, a true change sets its own standards: it can only be measured by criteria that result from it.”