Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
היה
“The Lord of Hosts” renders the Hebrew YHWH Ṣĕbāʾōth, most literally “YHWH of the armies.” The noun ṣābāʾ in Biblical Hebrew denotes an organized array rather than mere violence: it can mean an army, but also the ordered host of the heavens—the stars, the angelic ranks, the patterned forces that move according to command. When the title appears in the Hebrew Bible, especially in prophetic and liturgical contexts, it does not primarily name God as a tribal war-deity but as the sovereign of all structured powers, earthly and cosmic alike, the one before whom every disciplined multiplicity must answer. Historically, the title emerges with particular force in periods of political fragility, especially in the monarchic and exilic eras. Israel is small, threatened, often defeated; invoking “the Lord of Hosts” is not bravado but a counter-claim against visible power. Empires may marshal chariots and infantry, but they do not command the hosts themselves—the weather, the seasons, the stars, the moral arc of events. In this sense, the phrase functions as a theological refusal to absolutize any single regime, army, or order: whatever appears dominant is itself already embedded in a higher, encompassing command. Conceptually, “hosts” marks a crucial metaphysical point. God is not one force among others, not even the strongest force, but the one who gives coherence to forces as such. The title does not collapse God into multiplicity; rather, it names the source of order that allows multiplicity to appear as ordered at all. This is why later Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thought could retain the logic of the phrase even when demilitarizing its imagery: angels become intelligences, stars become laws, armies become structures of causation. The “hosts” persist, but their meaning deepens. Liturgically and rhetorically, “Lord of Hosts” carries an unsettling gravity. It resists sentimental domestication. The God addressed here is not merely consoling or intimate, but overwhelming in scope, capable of undoing false orders as easily as sustaining true ones. To speak the name is to place oneself before a sovereignty that exceeds every local allegiance and every visible hierarchy—a reminder that what appears most solid in history is, in the end, contingent upon a deeper command that cannot itself be marshaled, predicted, or controlled. Levinas treats the divine name not as a descriptive title that captures God’s being, but as an ethical disturbance that interrupts ontology. For him, names of God in the Hebrew Bible, including martial or sovereign titles such as “Lord of Hosts,” do not function to give positive content about what God is; they function to displace the very desire to know God as an object. The name marks a trace rather than a presence. It points not to a power one could thematize, but to a responsibility that precedes cognition. In this sense, Levinas reads the name as a linguistic event whose meaning lies in what it demands of the listener rather than what it reveals about a divine essence. Specifically, Levinas is wary of any interpretation of divine names that re-centers sovereignty, force, or totality. “Lord of Hosts,” taken ontologically, would seem to reinscribe God as supreme commander, as the ultimate instance of power organizing all multiplicities under itself. Levinas deliberately resists this. He re-reads such names through the prophetic and ethical register, where God’s “lordship” is inseparable from justice for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. The hosts are not primarily armies to be controlled, but the overwhelming plurality of others for whom I am responsible. The name thus undergoes an ethical inversion: sovereignty is not domination but infinite obligation. This connects to Levinas’s broader treatment of the name of God as unpronounceable in a philosophical sense even when it is spoken liturgically. God’s name does not name a being among beings; it names the beyond-being that arises in the face of the Other. The divine name is encountered where language fails to stabilize meaning into concept. To invoke God is already to risk idolatry unless the invocation is immediately translated into ethical vigilance. Hence Levinas often says that God is not met in theology but in the face-to-face relation, where the command “thou shalt not kill” precedes every doctrine. Within this framework, “Lord of Hosts” becomes a dangerous name if misunderstood and a crucial one if rightly received. Dangerous, because it can justify totalization, violence, and sacred power; crucial, because stripped of ontological triumphalism, it testifies to a transcendence that no political or cosmic order can absorb. The hosts cannot be totalized because responsibility cannot be completed. God’s “lordship” is precisely the refusal of closure: an authority that commands without appearing, that obligates without coercing, and that leaves the subject infinitely answerable to the other person rather than securely placed within a finished system. In the Hebrew, it is unequivocally “the Lord of Hosts,” not “the Host of Hosts.” The construction is YHWH Ṣĕbāʾōth: a proper name followed by a genitive plural. Grammatically and syntactically, YHWH is the subject; the hosts are what belong to or are commanded by Him. There is no biblical form in which the hosts themselves are doubled or elevated into a supreme collective, no “ṣĕbāʾ ṣĕbāʾōth” analogous to “Song of Songs” or “Holy of Holies.” That distinction matters conceptually. “Lord of Hosts” preserves transcendence by refusing to identify God with the multiplicity itself. God is not the sum, apex, or ultimate instance of the hosts; He is other than them, sovereign over them without being reducible to them. “Host of hosts,” by contrast, would suggest an immanent super-multiplicity, a highest army or ultimate totality, which would collapse the difference between God and ordered forces. Biblical Hebrew consistently avoids that collapse. This is precisely why later philosophical and theological readings—Levinas included—can work with the title without endorsing a metaphysics of domination. The grammar already resists immanence: God is not a being among beings, not even the biggest one. Even when the imagery is martial or cosmic, the linguistic structure safeguards alterity. The hosts exist; they are many; they are ordered. But the Lord is not another host added on top. He is named as other than the totality He “commands.” So the answer is not merely lexical but ontological. “Lord of Hosts” names a relation without absorption, authority without identification. “Host of hosts” would imply a highest totality; “Lord of Hosts” preserves the biblical and Levinasian intuition that what commands cannot itself be captured as part of what is commanded.
Yes, I understand. You are treating the Tetragrammaton not as a fixed lexical item but as a four-position structure, and you are asking what happens when one position in that structure is systematically substituted, yielding a set-variant rather than an attested name. I’ll stay strictly with the letters and their functions. YHWH corresponds to four Hebrew letters: Yod–He–Waw–He (י–ה–ו–ה). Yod functions as the smallest letter, often associated grammatically with the third-person prefix (“he will / he does”), with agency, initiation, or point-source. He functions as breath, opening, revelation, or emphasis. Waw functions as conjunction, continuation, linkage, and temporal unfolding. The final He reopens what has unfolded, leaving the word unclosed. When you replace Yod with Waw, the four-letter structure becomes Waw–He–Waw–He (ו–ה–ו–ה). This is not a word, but it is a coherent formal set: two Waws and two Hes, arranged symmetrically. What changes immediately is that the initiating point (Yod) is removed. There is no minimal source, no grammatical subject, no agentive prefix. What remains is pure continuation and breath. Waw does not begin; it joins. He does not act; it opens. So the structure no longer says “He is / He will be,” even obliquely. It says something closer to “and-breath-and-breath,” an oscillation without origin. Formally, YHWH encodes a movement from point → opening → continuation → reopening. WHWH encodes continuation → opening → continuation → opening. In other words, the second is process without origin, relation without subject, unfolding without a first term. If YHWH can still be read—however apophatically—as tied to being or causing-to-be, WHWH evacuates even that residue. It is not “being” but with-ness, not “He” but “and.” As a set, then, WHWH does not name. It performs. It is not a title or a predicate but a pattern of linkage and exposure. Literally, at the level of letters and their grammatical force, it corresponds to continuation–breath–continuation–breath. Nothing more determinate than that can be claimed without leaving philology and entering theology or poetry. But as a structural transformation of the Tetragrammaton, the meaning of the substitution is clear: agency is replaced by relation, origin by adjacency, and name by ongoing opening. Written in the Persian alphabet, two wows and two hays arranged symmetrically appear as وهوه (sometimes spaced وه وه). In Dari and Farsi this is not a theologically loaded term but an interjection. It is read roughly as vah-vah or voh-voh, depending on dialect and prosody. Literally, وه is an exclamatory particle expressing admiration, astonishment, or emphatic attention, closer to “bravo,” “well then,” or an intensified “wow.” When doubled as وه وه / وهوه, it heightens that affect: surprise, impressed acknowledgment, or emphatic response. It does not function as a noun or a verb; it is purely expressive, a vocal gesture rendered in script. So in Dari/Farsi, وهوه is a written representation of an exclamation, not a name, not a predicate, and not a lexical concept. It belongs to the register of sound-meaning rather than denotation: language at the edge where breath, reaction, and immediacy precede propositional sense. In Dari and Farsi, bah bah (بهبه / وهوه in variant spellings) is an expressive interjection rather than a lexical word with propositional meaning. Etymologically, bah belongs to a very old stratum of Persian exclamatives tied to breath and vocal release rather than roots or derivations; it has no triliteral base and does not conjugate or decline. Historically, such particles appear across Middle Persian and New Persian as affective sounds used to mark admiration, approval, or impressed recognition, functioning closer to gesture than statement. In terms of historicity, bah bah persists because it answers a recurring social need: the immediate acknowledgment of excellence without explanation. Its repetition intensifies affect, signaling that what is encountered exceeds ordinary expectation. Lexically, it sits outside the economy of meaning and truth; pragmatically, it stabilizes social resonance. In short, bah bah is a survivance of breath in language—an inherited vocal form where evaluation precedes articulation, and response precedes reason.
Isn’t this phonetic? Two bays side by side. And what would that be? So I want you to go back to the dari/ Farsi alphabet and get two bays, put them together. What would that be?
Yes—if you mean two bays strictly at the level of letters, then in the Persian/Dari alphabet that is simply بب. By itself, بب is not a word in either Dari or Farsi; it is just a doubled consonant, phonetic material without lexical meaning. Persian script normally requires vowels to stabilize sense, and without them, بب remains indeterminate, read roughly as “bb.” Once vowels are supplied, meaning emerges. If you insert a short a vowel between and after the bays, you get باب (bāb), which is a fully attested word meaning “door,” “gate,” or “chapter,” with deep historical and theological weight in Persian, Arabic, and Islamic intellectual history. But that is no longer two bays side by side; it is bay–alef–bay. So the distinction matters. Bah bah is not phonemically “two bays”; it is built from he-based breath sounds (بهبه / وهوه), not bay. Two bays together (بب) remain purely phonetic substrate—a consonantal doubling that only becomes language once breath, vowel, and convention enter.
Martin Luther is most famous for the formula “faith alone”—in Latin, sola fide. By this he meant that a human being is justified before God not by works, rituals, or ecclesiastical mediation, but by faith in Christ alone. Salvation, in Luther’s view, is not earned, accumulated, or perfected through moral effort; it is received as a gift, grounded entirely in God’s grace and apprehended by faith. Historically, sola fide crystallized Luther’s break with late medieval Catholic theology, especially the penitential system and the sale of indulgences. It opposed the idea that works contribute to justification, even if those works are enabled by grace. For Luther, works follow faith as its fruit, but they never precede it as a cause. Faith justifies; works testify. Conceptually, sola fide is not a slogan about belief as opinion, but about trust (fiducia). Faith is a lived reliance on God’s promise, not assent to doctrine. In that sense, Luther radicalizes interiority: the decisive site of salvation is not the visible economy of the Church but the conscience standing naked before God. This is why sola fide carries such disruptive force—it relocates authority from institutional mediation to the immediacy of trust. Luther was not directly a disciple of Meister Eckhart, but he was deeply shaped by a theological atmosphere Eckhart helped create, especially as mediated through the German mystical tradition. Eckhart’s emphasis on the absolute priority of God’s action over human effort anticipates Luther’s core insight that justification cannot be achieved by works. In Eckhart, the soul must be emptied, stripped of self-will and merit, so that God alone can act; in Luther, the sinner must abandon all claims to righteousness so that God alone justifies. The grammar differs, but the logic of dispossession is shared. Eckhart’s language of Gelassenheit—letting-be, releasement—also resonates strongly with Luther’s sola fide. For Eckhart, the soul does not climb to God; it yields, and God is born in the soul where all grasping ceases. Luther translates this mystical passivity into a forensic and existential key: faith is not an achievement but a being-seized by the promise. In both, salvation occurs where striving ends. What Eckhart describes as detachment, Luther redescribes as trust. Historically, the bridge between them runs through figures like Johannes Tauler and the Theologia Germanica, a text Luther admired and published. That work carries Eckhartian themes in a safer, more devotional register: the annihilation of self-will, the nothingness of the creature before God, and the absolute sufficiency of divine grace. Luther recognized in it a confirmation of his own break with merit theology, even as he rejected Eckhart’s more speculative metaphysics. The crucial difference is that Luther refuses to let mysticism become ontology. Where Eckhart can speak of the ground of the soul and the ground of God as one, Luther draws a sharp line between Creator and creature. Yet the inspiration remains real: Eckhart helped clear the space in which Luther could say that God saves not the improving self, but the self that has nothing left to offer. Peter Abelard, born in 1079 in Brittany and dying in 1142, stands at the beginning of the high medieval intellectual revolution. Trained in dialectic rather than monastic piety, he became famous in Paris for applying rigorous logic to theology at a moment when such an approach was still viewed with suspicion. His life unfolded at the fault line between emerging scholastic reason and older forms of authority grounded in tradition, discipline, and obedience. Abelard’s most enduring intellectual contribution is his insistence that reason has a legitimate role in matters of faith. In Sic et Non, he assembled contradictory statements from Church Fathers on key theological questions, not to mock authority but to force students to think. The text offers no solutions; its pedagogical force lies in teaching how apparent contradictions demand careful distinction, contextualization, and conceptual clarity. For Abelard, doubt is not the enemy of faith but its beginning, because inquiry sharpens understanding. Ethically, Abelard is most radical in his treatment of intention. In his moral theology, sin does not reside primarily in the external act but in the consent of the will. An action done in ignorance or without inward assent does not, strictly speaking, constitute sin. This focus on interiority anticipates later developments in conscience-based ethics and marks a decisive shift away from purely objective or ritual accounts of wrongdoing. Historically and personally, Abelard’s life is inseparable from his relationship with Héloïse, one of the most literate and intellectually formidable women of the Middle Ages. Their affair, secret marriage, his castration, and their eventual monastic separation form one of the most famous tragedies of medieval history. Yet their later correspondence reveals not sentimentality but philosophical depth, especially Héloïse’s relentless questioning of vocation, love, and obedience. Abelard emerges here not as a romantic hero but as a thinker struggling to reconcile reason, desire, faith, and suffering in a world that offered little mercy to those who crossed its boundaries. Dante Alighieri, born in Florence in 1265 and dying in exile in 1321, stands at the hinge between the medieval and the modern. He is best known for the Divine Comedy, a poem that maps the moral and metaphysical structure of reality through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise, written not in Latin but in the Florentine vernacular. That choice alone reshaped European literature by asserting that the deepest theological and philosophical questions could be addressed in the language of ordinary life. Intellectually, Dante fuses Christian theology with classical philosophy, especially Aristotle as mediated by Aquinas, while retaining a poet’s sensitivity to history and personal experience. The poem is also a political work: exile sharpened his vision, and Florence’s corruption, papal overreach, and imperial weakness all appear transfigured into cosmic judgment. Beatrice, both historical woman and theological figure, embodies for Dante the passage from human love to divine wisdom. Historically, Dante’s significance lies not only in what he wrote but in what he made possible. He gave Europe a model of the poet as moral witness, the vernacular as a vehicle of truth, and the imagination as a legitimate organ of knowledge. The Comedy endures because it treats salvation, justice, and love not as abstractions, but as lived realities inscribed into the structure of the world. The Divine Comedy is Dante Alighieri’s fourteenth-century epic poem tracing a journey through Hell (Inferno), Purgatory (Purgatorio), and Paradise (Paradiso). Written in vernacular Italian rather than Latin, it presents a total vision of reality in which moral choice, cosmic order, and divine justice are inseparable. The poem is structured with strict numerical and symbolic precision—three realms, thirty-three cantos each (plus one introductory canto), and terza rima—reflecting Dante’s conviction that meaning is embedded in form. Historically, the poem arises from Dante’s political exile and intellectual formation in Aristotelian-Thomistic theology. Hell exposes the consequences of misdirected love, Purgatory depicts the slow reordering of desire, and Paradise reveals love fully aligned with divine will. The guides mark stages of human capacity: Virgil represents reason, Beatrice revelation and grace, and Bernard contemplative vision. The Comedy endures because it treats metaphysics, ethics, and politics as lived realities. It is not merely an allegory of the afterlife but a map of the soul’s movement from confusion to clarity, from fragmentation to coherence, insisting that justice, love, and knowledge are ultimately one. Saint Ambrose was a fourth-century bishop of Milan, born around 340 and dying in 397, and he is one of the most influential figures in early Western Christianity. Trained in Roman law and rhetoric, he was serving as a civil governor when he was unexpectedly acclaimed bishop by popular demand, despite not yet being baptized. This unusual ascent shaped his distinctive authority: Ambrose brought juridical clarity and moral firmness into the Church at a moment when Christianity was becoming entwined with imperial power. Historically, Ambrose is famous for asserting the independence of the Church from the emperor. His confrontation with Emperor Theodosius after the massacre of Thessalonica, in which Ambrose required public repentance before readmitting the emperor to communion, set a lasting precedent for moral limits on political authority. He also played a decisive role in the defeat of Arianism in the Latin West, defending Nicene orthodoxy with intellectual rigor and pastoral force. Theologically, Ambrose combined biblical exegesis with classical philosophy, drawing deeply from Greek fathers while shaping a distinctly Latin Christian voice. He emphasized the interior life, the allegorical reading of Scripture, and the transformation of the soul through grace. His preaching profoundly influenced Augustine of Hippo, who credited Ambrose’s sermons with opening Scripture to him not as crude literalism but as spiritually and intellectually serious truth. Ambrose thus stands as a bridge between classical Roman culture and medieval Christian theology, helping to define what Western Christianity would become. Ambrose’s views are shaped by a fusion of biblical theology, classical philosophy, and Roman moral seriousness. At the center is his conviction that God’s grace precedes and transforms human effort. Salvation is not the product of moral achievement but of divine initiative, though Ambrose still insists on discipline, repentance, and ethical formation as the proper response to grace. This balance—strong grace with strong moral demand—became foundational for Western Christianity. Scripturally, Ambrose favors allegorical interpretation. He rejects a flat literalism and reads the Bible as a spiritually layered text in which historical events disclose inner truths about the soul. This method allowed him to reconcile Scripture with reason and philosophy, and it strongly influenced Augustine. For Ambrose, Scripture educates desire, not just belief; its purpose is conversion of life, not mere instruction. Politically and ecclesially, Ambrose holds that the Church stands above the state in moral authority. Emperors may rule bodies, but they are subject to the law of God like any other Christian. This view grounds his insistence that rulers must repent publicly for grave injustice. Power, for Ambrose, is legitimate only when it submits to divine judgment. Anthropologically, Ambrose emphasizes interiority. Sin begins in the will, virtue in rightly ordered love, and the Christian life is a gradual reorientation of desire toward God. Ascetic restraint, humility, and contemplation are not escapes from the world but ways of restoring order within it. In this sense, Ambrose sees Christianity as a discipline of the soul capable of civilizing both persons and empires. The story of the bees comes from Ambrose’s infancy. According to later tradition, when he was a baby lying in his cradle, a swarm of bees descended and settled on his face, moving in and out of his mouth without harming him, before rising and flying away. His father, a Roman official, interpreted this as an omen that the child would one day speak with extraordinary sweetness and authority. The episode became emblematic of Ambrose’s future as a great preacher and teacher of the Church. Historically, the story functions as a hagiographic sign rather than a factual report, drawing on classical symbolism in which bees represent eloquence, order, and divine inspiration. In antiquity, bees were associated with poets, lawmakers, and inspired speech, and Christian writers adopted this imagery to signal that Ambrose’s words would be both disciplined and filled with grace. As a result, bees became one of Ambrose’s enduring symbols in art and iconography, marking him as a figure whose speech was understood to flow effortlessly and authoritatively from a deeper source. Yes. The story about Ambrose and the bees may or may not be historically authentic, and that ambiguity is important. It belongs to hagiography, not eyewitness history, functioning as a symbolic condensation of a life rather than a report of events. What matters is not whether bees literally touched his mouth, but what kind of authority his speech was understood to have. And you’re right—there is a closely related story about Moses. In Jewish tradition, especially in Midrash (not in the biblical text itself), the infant Moses is tested before Pharaoh after seizing the crown. To determine whether the act showed intention or innocence, hot coals and gold are placed before him. An angel guides Moses’ hand to the coal; he puts it in his mouth, burns his tongue, and is thereafter “slow of speech and tongue.” This narrative explains Moses’ later claim in Exodus that he is not eloquent, and it frames his authority as divine rather than rhetorical. The contrast is instructive. Ambrose’s bees symbolize sweetness, fluency, and inspired eloquence. Moses’ burned tongue symbolizes the opposite: authority grounded in hesitation, broken speech, and dependence on God. Both stories solve the same problem—why should this person be trusted as a mediator of divine law?—but they answer it differently. One sanctifies eloquence; the other sanctifies its absence. In both cases, speech is marked from infancy as something that does not belong to the speaker alone. In Plato’s Pharmacy, Derrida focuses on the scene in the Phaedrus where the Egyptian god Thoth presents writing to King Thamus as a gift (pharmakon) that will enhance memory and wisdom. Thamus refuses the gift, arguing that writing will produce not memory but forgetfulness, since people will rely on external marks rather than cultivating recollection within the soul. Writing, he says, gives only the appearance of wisdom, not its reality; it allows people to hear many things without instruction and thus believe themselves knowledgeable when they are not. Against writing, Thamus privileges living speech, the spoken logos, which is animated by presence, intention, and the responsibility of the speaker. Derrida highlights how Plato, through Thamus, characterizes writing as a kind of being that mimics life without possessing it. Writing is compared to a painting: it looks alive, but if you question it, it remains silent. More strikingly, Plato likens written words to animals or beasts that wander indiscriminately, unable to choose their audience or defend themselves. Once released, writing circulates on its own, exposed to misuse, misunderstanding, and corruption, unlike speech, which remains tethered to its father, the speaking subject. Derrida seizes on this figure of the orphaned, animal-like text to show the instability within Plato’s hierarchy: writing is condemned as dangerous precisely because it is uncontrollable, iterable, and alive in a way speech pretends not to be. And yet, Plato writes. The pharmakon is thus both poison and remedy, and the attempt to subordinate writing to voice already betrays the dependence of meaning on what Plato excludes. The question is, was Plato aware of this failure? Are not the dialogues demonstrations? The pivot of world history, from mythos to logos, this is not an ordinary work or “text”; and we are not traversing over an ordinary patch of space-time. Voice and Phenomenon is Derrida’s early, tightly focused critique of Husserl’s phenomenology, aimed at dismantling the privilege granted to voice as the site of pure presence. Husserl treats inner speech—the voice one “hears” when thinking—as self-given without mediation, a meaning that seems to coincide perfectly with consciousness itself. Because the voice appears to vanish at the moment it is produced, leaving no external trace, it is taken as the model of immediacy and self-presence, unlike writing, which introduces spacing, delay, and exteriority. Derrida’s intervention is to show that this purity is illusory. Even in inner speech, meaning depends on temporal difference: retention of what has just passed and anticipation of what is coming. The voice is never fully present to itself; it is structured by delay, repetition, and spacing. What Husserl tries to exclude—difference, mediation, trace—is already at work inside the voice itself. There is no self-identical “now” of meaning uncontaminated by time. The consequence is decisive. If the voice is already inhabited by what Derrida calls différance, then the hierarchy that places speech over writing collapses. Writing is no longer a secondary corruption of living speech; it exposes a condition that was always there. Voice and Phenomenon thus quietly prepares the ground for Derrida’s larger project: dismantling the metaphysics of presence by showing that what philosophy takes to be most immediate is already marked by absence.
in the blink of an eye
“The voice that keeps silence” names, in Derrida, the paradox at the heart of phenomenology’s privilege of voice. The voice is supposed to guarantee presence because it seems to coincide with itself in inner speech, yet it only functions by effacing itself at the moment of articulation. It speaks by disappearing. Its authority depends on a silence that is not accidental but structural: the voice must not appear as an object, must not linger as a thing, must not become a trace. Derrida shows that this silent vanishing is precisely what allows the voice to masquerade as pure presence, while in fact it is already governed by delay, spacing, and repetition. The voice “keeps silence” not despite meaning, but in order for meaning to seem immediate at all. “The thing-in-itself always escapes.”
ov1d.com 