Arrhythmia

Perhaps the distinction between prohibition and transgression is misleading. Doesn’t transgression imply a boundary to be transgressed? But what if the boundary itself is remade in transgression? What if transgression reveals there never was a boundary – never an intact and self-identical kernel marked by a limit over which one would step. To step across the boundary is always to step too far; you cannot enter into the same river once and you cannot return to yourself after transgression. To where, then, do you return? In what direction do you ebb? Back to yourself? No: back to the habits that give you, for a time, the sense of remaining yourself. Or, again – back to a more reassuring rhythm, but one which is ready to dissolve at any moment into arrhythmia. How to think rhythm and arrhythmia together? They are not separate; rhythm is of arrhythmia and cannot separate itself from it. That is why prohibitions are required – but these are secondary formations, just as transgression is an inadequate name for the outbreak of chaos. Do not stabilise the threshold between rhythm and arrhythmia.