Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the self-identity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in “self-alienation,” not “self-identity, itself in self-alienation” “released” in and by “otherness,” and “actual other,” “itself,” not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).
Does anyone disagree?
U cannot leave teh Iterwebz they is forever. Even this post. OMG I get so much with this, this caste will I wish them do some thing about it. I mean, should you at some point arrrrrrrrrrrcquire some tincture of articulation and decide, hey, I need a career producing slick romantic fiction for the Atlantic, somebody there will do a web search and this little stinker will turn up in the inbox of every member of the editorial board by the time you’ve got the champagne chilled and the brie toasted or whatever the hell it is that they do with brie out there. I mean, you can’t use the stuff in a fondue and putting it on a Ritz cracker is pretty déclassé, so what are you really gonna do with it? I dunno. Which brings me to my next topic: why is it better to use a strawberry in a chocolate fondue than, say, an asparagus? At least you can dip the asparagus without getting your fingers burned. Sure, it makes your pee stink but it’s better than hearing Tina Brown squeal when you’re farting in the Atlantic boardroom, especially if you’ve been cheating with the pickled eggs like somebody I know but I’ll never do it again. I mean, who wants to pretend that the thin veneer of civilization is really all about THAT, Fondue, that is. You can’t fondue a pickled egg. Are you crazy?