Re: transgression again

John Ransom wrote:

>In other words, the limit and transgression both get their being from each
>other. If that's the case, then it's a mistake to think of them as radical
>opposites, or as mere excuses for each other.

That seems obvious and non-controversial. But what I've read of F and what
I've seen on this list is mostly very abstract. Could we put some flesh on
this? What limits, transgressed how?

Doug