Dialectical sublation may itself generate endless self-cancelling bad infinity

Evidence

Isn’t a bad infinite the outcome of the process of dialectical sublation? Isn’t the Aufhebung subject to an incessant activity that cancels itself at every instant it posits itself? If it is true that Absolute Knowledge does necessarily mark a stopping point in the speculative development, why couldn’t this pause be the unjustifiable but real result of a forceful intervention? — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 999

Categorization

• QUESTION: This directly presses the reader’s question: a ‘forceful intervention’ — an act of violence breaking the continuum — is exactly the structure Anidjar needs for the enemy passing from passive screen to agent. When does a pause become the product of force rather than dialectical necessity?
• SEED: Possible essay: ‘Bad infinity as the default state of pure process’ — what happens to sublation when nothing stops it; the forceful pause as the repressed origin of every completed system.
• DEEPTHINKING: A single compressed site where Malabou’s twin figures—plasticity as explosive bomb and Absolute Knowledge as forceful stop—overlap: the stopping point is an unjustifiable act of violence, i.e. the very plasticity it seems to negate.
• XREF: connects to: The dialectical process may itself generate a bad infinity rather than a true endpoint — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 999; Circularity fails as an answer to the dialectic’s relapsing into false infinity — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 1001