Being is a small, odd, rare thing, probably the smallest, the rarest—“next to nothing”; if not the Nothing itself, then the infinitesimal stylus, Lucretius’ clinamen, writing and creating traces on simulated sheets projectable upon or before or in front of, as a problema, the very Nothing, not unlike, perhaps, what modern physics is doing, still, … Continue reading
Silesius’ dictum: “To become Nothing is to become God.”
Meister Eckhart had already had written: “Who are they who are thus equal? Those who are equal to nothing, they alone are equal to God. The divine being is equal to nothing.”
And as for John of the Cross? What was his “path of Mount Carmel”? It consisted of 7 steps: “Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, and even on the Mount nothing.”
Mechthild von Magdeburg wrote: “You must love the nothing [das niht] and flee the something [das iht].”
We should, such befalls us, explore the relation between mysticism, especially in the form of negative theology, and modern science, in the trace left by Elisabeth Weber’s eminent “Elijahs Futures.” What is the desire of mysticism, and of science, if not to become the desire of nothing?
The pure futurity offered in Derridaean temporization and spacing makes any instructive or pedagogical choosing wherefrom to quote an impossible destinerrance between ontological chance or necessity, authorial indifference, and deliberate and delicate necessity. All his writings write on the acute structural inescapability of precisely having to make decisions on such structural destinerrance, politically acute for all times and spaces, relative all khōras: that strange share of iter/itar as signifying both iterability-and-other. We could have ourselves picked picking by chance or by necessity or by a play between the two, or, have ourselves indiscriminately pick from everywhere, or, try being wise about it. Nonetheless, such predicament here never bespeaks indifference; more critical, affirmative sense: a renewed criticity. These are, then, the quotes, to have us begin, from future to us.
The only limit in this is the restricting way wou meet those DeathGifts/GiftDeaths; wou make those lips and teeth, by refusal, denegation, suppression, fear, closed teeth—but there too, in the closed closing teeth, there are those grammas where Nothing slips in. Spacing is surely just as much in the very gramming as in the betweens of grammas—as it is between spacing-gramma and spacing-blanks. Traces are the most fragile things, by dreams awakened dreams.
…There is nothing but writing, in a certain sense, but writing uses a space a blank space, an ignorant biblion, bibliophoros, what carries letters; it has to space in order to be in the writing of its writing. The blank space is also the fortress buttressing, then by spacing writing all it can, against the Nothing that Derreath traces in Husserl but that just as well might be directly related to writing written here as Iou have wrote.
There are at least six things to remember, when reading and writing, experiencing: first the almost immediate Nothing in the very banal concreteness of the blank, the spacing, and the grammas; second the Nothing that the writer faces faced toward the paper and screen; third the Nothing between the intended writer and the intended reader; fourth the Nothing the reader faces looking into those spaced grammas; fifth the Nothing that ships texts out with no possible addressee; and sixth that Nothing that says that total death and absence is the very condition of possibility of there being decipherable texts.