The Historical Event

What is the difference between an event that terminates and one that begins a sequence?
Or is it a historical event a sign of a rupture in a series and a point of metamorphosis from one level, phase, or aspect of the historical continuum to another? Or is it a sign of transition from one phase of a continuum to another?

This very Western way of thinking, based on preconceptions and notions that all historical events are based upon human interaction – human emotions, achievements or desires – gives importance to the addition of something new to the state of being.
When I read this part of the article, it made me think – that’s it. A pretty simple understanding of what an event could be – Anything outside the ordinary, anything that disrupts the routine.

Then, Alan Badiou states simply – Being everything that is in the case and there is nothing that is not in the case. Nothing new can ever be added to being and there no event could ever take place.

Events only seem to occur all the time. Badiou explains the phenomenon as occurring when the knowledge of some unknown aspect of being is added to what had been previously known as being. But neither Badiou’s Eastern philosophy nor the opposite Western philosophy fail to include routine events that happen daily. It is assumed that an event only includes the unanticipated.

I think that maybe an event is anything that is in the case – that is being. Only until an event is noted is it labelled an event. An event can be anything from a fly buzzing in your ear, to the 9/11 attacks. The larger the group is that takes notice of the event, the more valid and accepted the event becomes.