God’s denied future rests on two contradictory premises about his self-divestment.

Evidence

Finally, above all – and this is a phenomenon at the same time more singular and more resistant to any formalization – the deprivation of the future is to be deduced from two premises which may seem contradictory. This God who says farewell to himself would have no future, precisely because, in leaving and in emptying himself, he could no longer promise or give. This inaptitude would be due, at the same time, to the negativity in God (to that which separates itself from itself, impoverishes itself of itself, in what Malabou calls an ‘originary penury’, and which would contradict all generosity) and (a typical Heideggerian argument, as Malabou justly remarks) to its absolute presence: in the farewell to one’s self, which is nothing else but the salvation of an auto-revelation, the infinite presence, the parousia of God would also forbid this other present which is also the gift to the other, the offering, the future of a promise or of a donation. God would have no future, he would not even be able to promise or give himself both because he leaves and impoverishes himself (he says farewell to himself) and because, while leaving himself, he still does not leave himself, he does not abandon himself (he says to himself farewell, that is to say, to his own self, within a strange reflexivity of the Self, of the accusative or the dative: to say to one’s self, to say to one’s self farewell, to one’s self or for one’s self, in his proper name, farewell, adieu). — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 152

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The aporia is genuinely layered: God’s future is denied both because he leaves too much (exhausting himself in giving) and too little (retaining parousia, so nothing can arrive). The reflexivity of the dative/accusative — whose accusative, whose dative, ‘to oneself’ — is the crux of the enmity plasticity problem the reader is chasing.
• XREF: This two-premise structure of the denied future speaks directly to Malabou’s plasticity-as-bomb elsewhere and to the reader’s queiry about when passive receptivity tips into active explosion.
• QUESTION: The ‘originary penury’ vs ‘originary plenitude’ double binds map provocatively onto the enmity receptivity/explosivity question — worth chasing how plasticity’s giving and withholding parallel kenosis.