Various fundamental possibilities (from the philosophical formula: the absence of time responds to the absence of every concept or the perfect intelligibility of the mo-ment; or Absolute Knowledge dissolves in Absolute Nonknowledge)
1. There was nothing to know.
2. Everything that we know is true, but on condition of disappearing in us (we know better in ceasing to know).
3. Desire having the absence of the object for its object, the absence of the concept, makes the concept the negation of value; consequently, value is refusal (and in all the apparent accepta-tions, through a ruse, there was what seemed accepted simply as the necessity of making the refusal rest on a given); refusal is the truth of being (God is self-loathing).?
4. Everything that is, that is intelligible, but seems better understood at the moment when I cease to understand it, is the foundation and limit of things. In this way, I go from nothing to becoming nothing (passively), then finally from becoming nothing (actively) to something worse than nothing. In the second case, the sacred is the loved object and, in the third, the sacred is the effect of my violation, of my destruction. The fourth case is despair.
There are several aspects of nonknowledge:
1. Going into the world of the possible up to the point where the possible agreement fails. To refer to the possible and since the impossible is there saying to itself that the possible is coming
to an end, it is as if it weren't coming to an end.
2. Beyond the possible, there is that which does not deceive us, as the possible obviously deceives us, since it comes to an end. Beyond the possible, I can erect what would not have the limit
of the possible. But I prepare for this end in projecting into the impossible a false response to my need for an impossible possible. Meanwhile, I can tell myself that this is something that won't deceive me the way something deceives me, I ready myself for self-deception.
3. Within human limits, knowledge is contradicted by numerous and complex movements.
1. There was nothing to know.
2. Everything that we know is true, but on condition of disappearing in us (we know better in ceasing to know).
3. Desire having the absence of the object for its object, the absence of the concept, makes the concept the negation of value; consequently, value is refusal (and in all the apparent accepta-tions, through a ruse, there was what seemed accepted simply as the necessity of making the refusal rest on a given); refusal is the truth of being (God is self-loathing).?
4. Everything that is, that is intelligible, but seems better understood at the moment when I cease to understand it, is the foundation and limit of things. In this way, I go from nothing to becoming nothing (passively), then finally from becoming nothing (actively) to something worse than nothing. In the second case, the sacred is the loved object and, in the third, the sacred is the effect of my violation, of my destruction. The fourth case is despair.
There are several aspects of nonknowledge:
1. Going into the world of the possible up to the point where the possible agreement fails. To refer to the possible and since the impossible is there saying to itself that the possible is coming
to an end, it is as if it weren't coming to an end.
2. Beyond the possible, there is that which does not deceive us, as the possible obviously deceives us, since it comes to an end. Beyond the possible, I can erect what would not have the limit
of the possible. But I prepare for this end in projecting into the impossible a false response to my need for an impossible possible. Meanwhile, I can tell myself that this is something that won't deceive me the way something deceives me, I ready myself for self-deception.
3. Within human limits, knowledge is contradicted by numerous and complex movements.
