item #0082

Never open up without appearing to do so, you said, and you were right. I know that now - the hard way. I've spent the day licking my wounds; it's what I do with that knowledge, though, that you'll be interested in. So, if you will, to some ideas I've had ... What, I wonder, makes it possible to substitute the contents of, let's say, an 'elemental terminology' - as it permutates, transforms and restructures the forbidden remainders of so-called 'classical thought' into concerns only for some kind of 'centre' - for those of, for example, paradox and belonging, or even the totality? It seems to me that coherence in and of itself is neither directly or reliably conditional upon general desire - or, as I prefer to call it, fundament, whether grounded and immobile or less static. There is, therefore, less in the way of certitude in this corpus of assertions; and any ensuing anxiety, I feel, implicates all those who realise this in a game of being fraught with false beginnings, false repetitions and false substitutions. It is for these reasons that I cannot see how the transformations you say you are concerned with - towards establishing meaning unaffected by any kind of anticipated formal presence - can effectively move upon those layers of archeology, which eschatology itself makes an accomplice of. I believe, in contrast, that my own interest in reducing the situation to basic structures - in an attempt to conceive of and to organise methodological starting points which are easily understood - will imbue presence upon the problems we are each of us endeavouring to find solutions for. Iain