2.84
There’s no position outside the game: we’re always observing from particular places in particular contexts, and there’s no way to step outside to some ‘neutral’ position (a little more objective and shorn of particularity).
Things always carry traces of aspects we haven’t grasped (§2.82), which means aspects escape us. The idea of a God that guarantees totalizability is an attempt to seal off this leak, this essential leakage. Following Derrida, this God is the centre that’s ultimately outside the structure of creation (§1.98); God guarantees totalization only by escaping it. The dam of our finitude is plugged by the infinitude of God, but at the cost of positing God as the essential leakage, i.e., that which escapes (§2.74).
This perspective that’s not a perspective (because, as God, it’s all possible perspective) would have to accomplish a total ‘perceiving’ of, relating to, ‘knowing,’ and grounding of all things: it’d have to be ‘sensing’/relating to all things at all times such that all is always contained and conserved (omniscience, omnipresence) and given sense (omnisensical) (§2.35). But the problem is not just that we’re wrong to think we could know, value, or manage everything (even in theory, even through the concept of an omniscient God, even in general terms). The problem is that we still think there’s an everything at all.
A desire for this kind of view (which emerges in certain frameworks of objectivity, even those based on statistical probability) reveals a ghostal lineage to God as leakage, a denial of my thesis on worlds, and a desire for a position outside positionality. Worlds are wholes, and there is no totality above and inclusive of them all.