What is the Eunuch’s relation to the Father? Is the Eunuch somehow, paradoxically, a more original wholeness than that of the Father even though the Father would have us, by force of Law, even, believe the Eunuch’s castration representative of a lack and artificiality and hence a threat to the order of things? If those who would obey the Law must seek the Eunuch for a Child, symbol of the Father’s divine plenitude and the perfect expression (or at least the perfect rhetoric) of the natural, perhaps this logic reveals a kind of primordial emptiness necessary for what is assumed to be original to ever be present. If one wants affirmed what one assumes one is, one must first seek the blessing of what neither is nor not. One seeks the Eunch's space for the impossible's event.
But, what happens at this event? What is its truth? And what are the effects of this strange night on those who need to believe they need it to be what they think they need to be? Did the American women know what was happening in the bed or was she tricked? Is the child a miracle or the counterfeit of a miracle? Why do the Westerners, who continually assert the universality and goodness of their norms, demand a relation to the eastern Other that must above all else, as Kamal critically asserts when he confronts the American women, be kept a secret? And why must this concealment be policed by means of a return to that Father who’s law could not originally satisfy the mother?