fragilekeys

Nancy clarifies: it’s not only that thought can only think the greatest, largest, most non-existent thing. Thought also thinks beyond it. This is why Jesus is an idiot.

Partially because of the audacity to believe, to think, to know, that one is God’s actual son. This means that aside from bloodlines, cultures, lineages of any sort, God’s child is. That is to say, I am God’s child. But the stupidity here is as follows: In order for there to be a father (and not, in another sense, a neighbor, whether a sibling or a brother), things extinguish (as in a most instantaneous way).  Which also suggests that in the natural order of things, the Son comes before the brother. Which in this case means: the Son comes before the father.

Which does not necessarily mean that he comes after him. It means that, in a sense, he cannot live without being extinguished too. This is because “he” knows that he is absolutely nothing. Language, truth, thoughts, vividity, comes from the father, that is to say, is a reminiscence of sorts; or rather, it’s the birth, as such, of language, of identity. But this means first and for most, a birth of existence, of a world, and thus finally of a rapport. Continue reading →

Infancy derives its name from the Latin “in-” (not, opposite of) and “fans” or “fari” (to speak). Thus, in-fancy = not-speaking. But “fari” (to speak) is also connected to “fama” (talk, rumor, reputation), “fabula” (narrative, account, tale, fable), and can be traced all the way back to the Greek “phone,” which of course means: voice. Thus, in-fancy = not-spoken. In-fancy then denotes a state of being, or a time in history, where we do not (yet?) speak, where there is not (yet?) a fable or account of our being, where there is not (yet?) voice. This is why, in common parlance, infancy denotes the first months or years of our lives: before we’ve “established ourselves,” as we often say. But we also apply the notion of infancy to other moments in life. We speak of something being in its “infancy stages,” referring to modern space exploration, a new career or project, a new relationship, or even to humanity itself. We refer to “baby steps” (“petit pas”) to indicate the movements of these initial infant stages. Here, in-fancy = not-yet, or just-starting-out. Of course, the word “infantile” is often used pejoratively. Someone is accused of being infantile if they do not abide, or if they don’t yet know or acknowledge the rules; if they are willfully obnoxious and disruptive, say, in a classroom; or if they are laughing over “childish things” (fart noises, words like “vagina” or “fucking,” etc.). This indicates, then, that there is supposed to be a point in time within the development of the person when they “get over” these childish things; where they acknowledge, accept, and abide by the rules and common standards of everyday life; where they, in short, “grow up.” Continue reading →

I

One of the blessings of working constantly at a certain problem is that you end up constantly revising the way you ask the question. When you are allotted the time (or allot yourself the time) required to really tackle the problem, you will also likely be led far “astray”: you will wander into territory that you wouldn’t have thought pertained to the initial questions, and new lines of inquiry will be generated. If, along this already “erring” path, you allow yourself the interruptions of chance, and persevere in reaching out to unforeseen sources, you eventually find that the initial terms of the problem no longer apply. Or rather, that the problem you thought you had been pursuing was not really the “real” problem, and that you had been following the “real,” other problem all along. One allows oneself so many interruptions, diversions, waverings and turnings in the hopes of stumbling upon this “real” problem. Continue reading →