Relation resists proof and admits only endless poetic description

Evidence

The accumulation of examples is reassuring to us but is outside of any clairn to system. Relation cannot be “proved,” because its totality is not approachable. But it can be imagined, conceivable in transport of thought. The accumulation of exalnpIes aims at perfecting a never complete description of the processes of relation, not circurnscribing them or giving legitimacy to sorne impossible global truth. In this sense the most hannonious analysis is the one that poetically describes flying or diving. Description is no proof; it sim ply adds something to Relation insobr as the latter is a synthesisgenesis that never is cornplete. — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 879

Categorization

• XREF: This directly addresses whether Glissant’s account of Relation can be held non-essentialistically — his answer that it cannot be circumscribed parallels the strategic-essentialism bind the reader is tracing. — connects to: Relation’s poetics demands concluding theory paired with non-concluding presence — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 908; Tolerating poetic truth in a separate realm protects the status quo — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the…, 676; A single concrete example can prove existence but not more (+2 more)
• DEFINE: Glissant defines Relation as a ‘synthesis-genesis that never is complete’ — an open process immune to systematization, unlike fixed identity categories.

Broader Connections

• Relation’s poetics demands concluding theory paired with non-concluding presence #corroborates (0.75) — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 908
• A single concrete example can prove existence but not more #exemplifies (0.75)
• Tolerating poetic truth in a separate realm protects the status quo #corroborates (0.70) — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 676