1.2.4    The beginning is impossible to think of but as cause for termination.

1.3.2    It was not so much the eating of the fruit that gave them knowledge of the difference, but by having been expelled from perfect ease, to the uncertainty without whereby they came to understand that they could never break their law. The "knowledge of good and evil” was a superficial sign of an enduring prohibition, which did not preclude the thought that it be lifted from without: for adhered to in the work of preparation, the forbidding was named “faith” by those that followed.

1.4.1    A term of comprehension that facilitates the world to come is only an approach that somehow signifies a future understanding.

An initial understanding merely constitutes the need to pass away.

1.4.3    The significance of such exceeds the limited awareness it produces.








2.1.3    Thus prohibited from knowledge of the world to come the only obligation is to name.



2.2.6    To speculate on that to which the contract be relation – that it be between a “god” and any “human” for example – is to make of this an object that takes place among the countlessly diverse specifications of the contract, as another mere example of contraction.



2.2.7    That to which the contract be relation disassociates from every speculation.



2.3.4    Its conception is not knowledge of the contract, but acceptance of the need for its ulterior fulfilment.



2.5.7    The signing of the contract is the tentative acceptance of what cannot be conceived by such an instance.



2.5.8    Thus to sign is to renounce the world as given by the contract.








2.10.5  The universe is brought to light by signing.








3.5.1    The contract is interpreted by that which is without an understanding.








4.1.6    “Unlimited liability” is defined as liability that cannot be defined without increasing.



4.4.1    The unlimited liability may be realised by uncountable contingent obligations.



4.4.3    Every obligation is a singular exception to the world that went before it.








5.1.5    The operation of the contract is the unforeseen production of the real.



5.2.1    The facility escapes the comprehension it enables. As prerequisite to things as such in general it is nothing in itself but the necessity to yield to its unthinkable conditions.



5.3.1    The facility is given as what gives consideration. It appears as such in that there be appearance, not as such or such appearance.



5.4.1    The facility provides for things not formerly provided – such as “galaxies beyond the milky way”.



5.5.4    The sum of all that is is an impossible abstraction.



5.7.3    A stone is an expression of the universe to equal any star. There is no precedence, nor order to adhere to.








5.16.1  The facility forbids; and the forbidding guarantees the matter funded.



5.16.5  The forbidding is conceived of as a promise to repay.








6.6.5    The sense of prohibition is condition for the freedom to invest within the present.



6.7.5    Not as something signified, the quality of worth is the significance itself of something given. This significance is open.



6.9.1    An investment may facilitate another understanding to invest with.








7.1.4    The facts in the account-book are in fact interpretations of the contract.



7.3.2    That a figure of account can only signify what cannot be accounted for for now means that the sense of the account cannot be settled.



7.4.5    That which is excluded from the lines of the account may come to light by means of signing.



7.7.1    The need to reach a figure is ongoing, irrespective of what figures have been drawn to such an end.



7.7.3    It is impossible to calculate a figure of the kind that would release the self from every obligation.








8.1.4    Consciousness is consciousness of debt.



8.2.4    That which is to pay is not a figure of that owed – but is the void that would invalidate all figures of repayment.



8.2.5    The pressure to repay is an unreasonable demand to give up everything for nothing.



8.3.2    Nothing is external to the field of the account of debt contracted. To have taken an account of the beginning of the world would be to make of it another mere example of endebtment.



8.3.4    Not only debt perceived, but the perception of that debt is debt itself to be acknowledged as outstanding.



8.4.4    The quality of debt in something given may suggest that it has no secure foundation, so that even its existence may be doubted. Only that there be a debt is all that may be certain – that is, any debt at all.



8.5.1    The debt appears to manifest itself as without cause.



8.5.3    That the terms escape the consciousness provided by the same may lead that consciousness to calculate the presence of the debt as if that debt were independent of the contract.



8.6.6    That to which the universe is owed is only recognised as yet to be accepted.



8.7.5    Payment is in any case a promise of repayment.



8.8.1    The debt cannot be paid by its own substance.



8.9.5    The debt is irreversible. It cannot be returned – but may be financed.



8.10.6  An acknowledgement of debt is an acknowledgement of terms to be accepted.



8.12.3  A figure would be reached in termination of the subject.



8.13.6  A debt may be referred to as a promise that would signify a consciousness to come.



8.12.5  The relevance of death to debt is taken to refer to the impossible return of that left owing.








10.1.4  An apparent absolution would in any case be shown to be an actual default.








11.2.1  The interminate is that to which one has not come to terms; and that which threatens that which is.



11.2.3  One will have to come to terms with an unreasonable demand.



11.2.5  The debtor is in every case in question.



11.2.6  The demand comes from without an understanding.



11.4.2  The interminate is not to be commanded, nor to even be perceived by an identity that otherwise imagines. It will always overcome. Although not known it may appear to be the source of the forbidding of the image of the same.








12.2.1  Attention to the source of the validity of any situation, which is not to be conceived in terms of human understanding as “eternal”, is less drawn to an objective as withdrawn from all objectives. A decision to grant finance in the world that it would suddenly dissolve is contradiction. Only death may lift the burden.



12.3.1  That which is perceptible at present is a fragile indication of the nature of the void.



12.4.5  Funding is received in terms of reference to that which would invalidate that funded.



12.5.1  The terms are of the void to which they signal.



12.5.5  That which signifies the void is that which signifies as voided.



12.5.6  Every demonstration of the void is void by nature.








13.2.1  As the lapse that is already left behind is finance followed by a consciousness that follows its own lack of understanding by which terms may be contracted.



13.2.3  That from which and that to which are one.



13.2.7  The only comprehension of the finance that may ever be achieved will be by means of that which signifies its absence.



13.5.1  The financial operations are expressions of the void that voids all matters of concern.



13.7.5  The finance brings about such innovation as the beating of a heart, which beating signifies what cannot be returned to.



13.7.8  Nothing reappears beyond the finance.








14.3.3  The figure to be drawn is of a mythical first time that leaves an incremental absence to return to.








15.1.1  The account may not be settled by whatever other means than termination.



15.4.1  The fulfilment of the promise is a promise to fulfil.








15.5.1  The image of the law implied its breaking. But unable to transcend his own humanity projected on the image of the golden calf had Moses failed to understand the fragments. Their significance would open to a later age that recognised itself in his hypocrisy and pride. Whereby the punishments were lifted.

From Of the Contract (Punctum Books, 2017)