ABSTRACT
Forgetting figures within the Cartesian strategy of destruction in clearly identifiable ways. There is another site, however, where consequences similar to those arising from forgetting are acted out. As a result, therefore, the effect of these consequences must be noted and their presence acknowledged. What is involved in this instance is the connection between forgetting and yet different forms of destruction. No longer is destruction simply to be linked to the presence and thus to the intended absence of tradition’s continuity; destruction can in addition also take the form of an obliteration of the site of conflict obliteration as the effacing or denial of the name as event and thus with it either the obviating of complexity or the re-presentation of complexity as a construction of simples and therefore as no more than a specific totality of simples. It will be noted, at a different interval, that this reworking of the site such that its obliteration can be taken as being of significance arises out of the potential inherent in Leibniz’s formulation of the monad. (It goes without saying that it is the consequences of this potential that suffer obliteration.) Its being inherent —an inherent potentialalmost stakes out in advance the ontological state of affairs which it can be seen as addressing. Taking up the inherent, not necessarily in terms of the content that inheres but in regard to the ontology of inhering-understood initially as a type of presence-and the relation it enacts will form an integral part of any conception of complexity. Once again it is the complex beyond simple accumulation. With the monad the event is prefigured by the monads figuring, by allowing, the anoriginal presence of ontological irreducibility a site, i.e. locating the effective presence of a differential ontology, by being it.
