June 5th, 2002

hat

probably you don't want to read this

the other absolutely other and absolutely refractory to categories can't be 'He.' 'He' is the category par excellence, right there on a par with Being and the Same. likewise there is no good reason to associate the name of God with the other absolutely other except that both might denote infinity but God as a proper noun is antithetical to the refractory to names. the dispossessed and improper is nothing like any God i've ever known and it seems to me that calling God in to name that which cannot be named is the same as calling in the Law of law or the command of the all-powerful Father to domesticate and master the unmasterable.

if the Other comes naked and destitute of being some other designation besides God should be thought of. or no designation at all. God as described is not the Absolute Person but the absolute dispossession of the personal and the impossibility of the subjectivity of the other as well as of the same. the approach of the other is an indication of the impossibility of enclosure even as the other shows up as utter exteriority: signification as the one for the other and the other for the one yet borne out of no possible designation as 'one' or 'other' because it is the unfigurable and prior orientation of designation itself. or the radical exposure of the infinitely inappropriable.

what i'm not sure of is if this repetition does not allow for an reinscription of whatever power. that is, if alterity as exposed is exposed and destitute, what prevents egoism from enacting the same murder as always? that it will miss? yes but it will still kill something.


i'm so tired of thinking.
  • Current Mood
    restless restless