of Maxwell Clark
"[...]it could be discovered that they did not act from knowledge, but solely from the disposition of their organs[...]"
---Descartes, Discourse on Method
Research: the proper grammatical case of "infinity"; if it even has one? On the confirmation of this case follows that of its neologistic conjugation (or cognate? both?)---"infinitism". Upon these two present lexical wonderments being most rigorously affirmed into their most determinate and proper cases of grammar, almost undoubtedly more must follow, however utterly unforeseeable these so fated revelations remain of yet. But, then, how does grammatical classification, especially one such as that just augured in the sentences previous to this, affect the conditions of our social life? as creation or infinity itself? (May yet infinity ever be properly, that is, grammatically predicated as of "itself" however? Or, isn't infinity never even once itself? as always otherwise transcending its once said conceptualizations, or absolutely restless?) Identifying grammatical cases, or, for this peculiar inquiry, alone those of the "terms" (this term, however, itself already also a highly suspect or inapropos term, because also terminating, or terminal, et. al, in its cognate connotations, and so thus also conflating its said concrete contextual references---e.g. "infinity", "infinitism"---into its own finite structure or closed set of valences) infinity and infinitism, if this hypothetical task ever prove achievable in even the most minimal sense, such as grouping each said "term" (as it were) into or under the most common and authoritative, or persuasive, categories of grammatical orthodoxy, much less witnessing how they affect some momentous shift or renovation in our grammatical schemata---as is perhaps ever the most dire want and will of "infinity" and "infinitism" in their relations with grammar.... Or, indeed, the remodeling of grammar, as is especially obvious when faced with this placing of "infinity" and "infinitism" into its traditional categories/cases, is its own interminable task for itself, or, perhaps more rigorously put, its own infinite desire (to become otherwise). As infinity, if not also infinitism (it depends on actualizing their grammatical cases), is interminable, then, perhaps the corollary of this is that neither, or at least the former, is not a term, as such, anymore, or in any hereafter sincere or rigorous expression let us say. This essential interminability of infinity and infinitism, or, that is, their common exclusion from the generality or referential provenance of terminology, or their non-existence as terms, otherwise put as their being transcendentally elsewise and exterior to/from the entiremost set of significant valences radiating out from each of the cognates, et. al, of the "infinitive" verb (traditional grammatical center or inaugural essence of any term's later, or subsidiary, grammatical conjugations) "to term". An aside on the said (if very hesitantly so "said") infinitive class of the verb-form "to term": how is its characteristic activity as a verb, e.g., in terming, terminating, rendering terminal, setting terms to, bringing to term, et. al, also said to be "infinitive" as such. As such, that is, as "to term" (however grammatically classed as an infinitive) is also nearly synonymous with finition, e.g., making finite, or production of finitudes---each of these determinations being, as is almost needless to further note, of among the most precisely and unequivocally obverse, and so somewhat also meaningless, possible relations to the name of infinity, and thus too, perhaps, also the infinitive (its cognate?). If infinity is never a term, then, how is the verb-form "to term" infinitive, except as an abberant corruption of the name of infinity, its non-terminological significance; as if its conjugation into a very minorly different lexical form (as though, perhaps, through the substitution of a distinct postfix: "-ive" for "-y") very majorly twisted its meaning into an antithetically contorted shape. Nowhere else in my almost agnostic ignorance of grammatical studies does any change of postfixes to an otherwise common or "root" participle affect anything near the total reversal of signifying valences which is witnessed in the permutation of infinity unto infinitive, or vice versa (if only insofar as the lattermost cognate is the verb-classification of the said term: "to term"). Veering away a little from this as yet (perhaps forever) unresolved enigma of said extreme polarization in the meaningful senses of two otherwise exceedingly cognate signs (if you will), however supremely bewildered its exposition, I stumble untowardly to the seemingly proximate set of issues concerning what is the infinitive form of the non-terminological name of infinity? i.e., is there a grammatological "center" or "inaugural essence" unto which the name of infinity may be conjugated back into? is infinity, as such, grammatological? ....