Mathematical continuity only foreshadows but cannot found ekstatic being

Evidence

We may recall here the famous definition of Poincaré: a series a, b, c, is continuous when we can write a=b, b=c, a÷c. This definition is excellent in that it gives us a foreshadowing of a type of being which is what it is not and which is not what it is. By virtue of the axiom, a=c, by virtue of continuity itself, a÷c. Thus a is and is not equivalent to c. And b, equal to a and equal to c is different from itself inasmuch as a is not equal to c. But this ingenious definition rests on a mere playing with words such as we confronted in the view of the in-itself. And while it furnishes us with a type of being which at the same time is and is not, it does not furnish us with either its principles or its foundation. Everything still remains to be done. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 469

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sartre uses Poincaré’s continuity definition to prefigure his concept of the For-itself as a being that is what it is not and is not what it is—a key ontological marker.
• XREF: connects to: The inactive past cannot reach the present except through an ekstatic being

Broader Connections

• The inactive past cannot reach the present except through an ekstatic being #corroborates (0.82)