Opposition and Duality

The passage presents opposition and duality as an unstable principle of thought and expression. A speaker names an “eternal Zweispaltung” as fundamental, but the surrounding language refuses to leave the split intact: woman and man, greater and lesser, one and many, descent and ascent, and opposition itself are made to turn, overlap, and reproduce. Duality is therefore both an organizing structure and something the text continually unsettles.

The split as a foundation

The most explicit formulation appears in the speaker’s promise to make the listener see an “eternal Zweispaltung” as the “Fundemaintalish” of restoration. The German term for division is absorbed into the passage’s multilingual, punning English, while restoration is itself rendered as a return to wholeness. The sentence thus holds separation and repair together: the split is not an accidental disturbance that can simply be removed, but a condition from which renewal is imagined to begin.

That claim is delivered amid grotesque bodily and sexual wordplay, including an insistence on making a capital letter for pride “down there.” The grand language of fundamental division is yoked to physical comedy and sexual difference. Rather than setting abstract principle above the body, the passage makes the body one of the places where its binary logic is performed and mocked.

Reversible measures and unstable boundaries

A later passage turns opposition into a problem of measurement. It imagines a “littlenist” that may be granted no magnitude, then considers whether what lies in the power of “empthood” must be greater or less than unity. The vocabulary of mathematical comparison promises a firm boundary between less and more, absence and unit, but the argument refuses a settled result: the self-returning figures it describes are declared impossible, and the reasoning becomes “Quarrellary.” Division here generates dispute rather than a reliable hierarchy.

The passage then makes reproductive femininity its example of expansion and limitless spatiality. Its figure of a woman who spends herself “as sphere as possible” turns the body into a geometry of proliferating facets and curves. Yet this apparent movement toward endless increase is countered by the image of those facets shrinking from “schurtiness Ambages and Their R“le.” Expansion and contraction, abundance and limit, become difficult to separate: each is invoked through the other, and neither settles the question of where the boundary lies.

Contraries meet and exchange places

The text stages opposition not only as a conceptual problem but as a startling visual encounter. A voice reacts to a “superpbosition” and a “quincidence,” then mistakes a figure for a bolt of thunder and is told to look in the wrong place: the figure’s trunk is not its brainbox, and the relevant lines lie below, in a reflection. The moment shifts attention from an assumed upper, authoritative source to a lower, reflected one. What appears to be an external sign is entangled with its image, and the observer’s certainty gives way to misrecognition.

This reversal prepares the passage’s explicit naming of “The Twofold Truth and the Conjunctive Ap petites of Oppo sitional Orexes.” The divided spelling breaks opposition into a conspicuous verbal object, while “conjunctive” appetites bring together what the phrase “oppositional” seems to set apart. Duality does not disappear; its terms remain legible, but their relation is shown to be connective as well as antagonistic.

Form, rhythm, and the persistence of duality

The surrounding language makes this instability audible. Compounds, distortions, fragments from several languages, and rapid shifts between learned abstraction and comic physicality prevent the argument from settling into a single authoritative register. Even the movement from ascending to descending hierarchies and from peripatetic periphery to “Allothesis” places direction and reversal side by side. The prose performs a world in which a term can change its position even as it is being named.

At the close of the evidence, the speaker announces that tomorrow will bring “pilscrummage” and “whaboggeryin” in conjunction with the twofold truth and its oppositional appetites, then launches into a rhythmic sequence of paired and alternating sounds: thigh with tickling, leg with law, two at a time, three in a turn. The sequence does not resolve the opposition into a final synthesis. Instead, it makes contrast recur as sound, bodily suggestion, and verbal alternation. Duality is the passage’s persistent grammar, but its terms never remain securely on opposite sides.