Giorgio Agamben writes: “How it is we do not know something is no less important and perhaps even more important than our ways of knowing.” An “art of ignorance” would open the subject up toward the sphere of the incommensurable Agamben calls the “zone of ignorance,” and he does not hesitate to affirm the ideal of a harmony “with what we fail to apprehend,” which would amount to “finding the right relation to ignorance.” As so often, Agamben argues in favor of embracing a fundamental impotence: “Nothing makes us so poor and so unfree as the alienation from impotence. Someone who is separated from what he can do can still offer resistance, still possesses the ability to desist. He who is separated from his impotence, by contrast, loses first and foremost the ability to resist. Just as only the injurious awareness of what we cannot be vouches for the truth of what we are, only the radiant manifestation of what we cannot do or abstain from doing lends consistency to our actions.” We should not confuse the injury Agamben speaks of with a narcissistic wound giving rise to resentment; far from confirming an imaginary integrity, an intact potency, a stable knowledge and ability by making a cut or incision, it names the originary contamination of the subject that consists in its instability and contingency. We may also speak of the imperfectionism of our realities, faculties, achievements, theoretical as well as practical. Perfectionism would be narcissism. It would imply a lack of willingness—should we not speak of a want of courage?—to engage with the point of inconsistency of mundane presences to the extent that it marks their visible or invisible, dramatic or imperceptible, unsettling or amusing, affirmed or repressed fissuredness. What sort of image of thinking might be adequate to this general inconsistency?