"The lie finds itself at the limit of thought’s ability to form its relation with the world— instead the world has given the liar the nub. There is a fundamental inversion here, in that the liar presumes a freedom from necessity in deriding its engagement by lying. Yet in so far as the lie is necessarily a lie to another body or thought, it comes to betray the freedom of its thinker by recognising the dominance of that thought over itself."
Given the liar the nub? Yes, and what does one do with a nub, but rub. Someone is being given the latter.
Similarly, "betray the freedom" of the thinker works both ways. Something I couldn't help being aware of in writing the above, but I begin to understand the meaning of more fully in retrospect: what is uncovered is that the liar is indeed free. Their utterance is chosen, even if lip service is paid to necessity (requiring a lie). Either there is a real unfreedom in being beholden to bare necessity, or a freedom that fails to recognise itself as such (another sort of unfreedom), or a freedom of utterance without remorse for lies. Maybe the latter is more properly where the betrayal comes in.
