For Hannah,
I stopped at “being in Love”, then wavered between “we love” and “we are in love” and wondered of the the difference in relation to the One.
“How might it be spoken so that it is not at odds with itself?” … I arrived at the place, “at odds with itself” … this is the question of uniqueness and One again … no ? What is it to name love ? Is it to make our representation of it coincide with the world itself ? It is love … there is love, … etc. Or do we try to name ourselves constantly ‘in love’ by making the representation of the world coincide with what we tell others. I guess what I am trying to get at is that before naming things, we are caught in trying to name ourselves. Is the problem augustine has ? (he wants to constantly hand naming over to someone naming someone else: god names us, for example) But is the failure to name ourselves in language what requires or is the condition of love ( a bit like a child being read a night time story before they fade into sleep … ) Does this gap, this passage from speaking of things to “being in love” introduce something that we are constantly calling art ? That
the passage from a mere referential relation to reality to the ACT of love, is constantly “odd’ in so far as it opens us to a difference of having to refer, but not knowing what we are referring to. Is this the lack … we have been going around and working with: ONE and LACK ? What is the mode of working with this ? Perhaps already to call it One and Other ?
Well, this enough … for the moment,
Robert
