On what will it be written? Within what domain and thus what place
will that which is written give itself over to an understanding; as a gift
even to its own understanding? A self-giving opening opened up by
refusing the possibility of any original singularity. Denying by re-fusing
it a place (in place) and thus allowing for another fusing. Another place
turning the singular back upon itself and with it inscribing it in a
complexity from which it cannot hold itself apart since it will always have
been a part of it. Within the inseparability of apart/a part there is that
which will ground any singularity. The singularity will be the other gift,
always given apres coup.
Within this opening there are questions and positions which are
themselves turning around the temporal distinction between singularity and
plurality. In holding the distinction as temporal and thus allowing
existence (maintained as a differential ontology), this holding as allowing
opens up the surface by demanding that it be given another depth.
Within it, on it, it is given space and thus a place however both take
place in time. The time in question is not an addition, it does not add to
existence as though it were present as a mere ornament. Time inheres in
the through of existence and with any instantiation. Presence does not
just occur in time, presence is as the occurrence of time. Time's
presentation. What will have to be retained - maintained throughout - is
the already complex nature of any presentation. In retaining what must be
held open is the difficulty of thinking this complexity.
Within writing, within its initial presentation, a reductive and
simple presentation, writing could be taken as being that which is placed
on. With it therefore there is that taking and placing that tradition has
for writing. Held for it. Writing as always writing on. On internality,
a topic. As already existent place for its occurrence. The latter is that
on which the writing is. Its being - the "is" - leads writing to the
surface and thus as only ever superficial; of the surface, superficies
Within writing what emerges is the place of its own enactment. With
what is maintained, within it though not reducible to it, is the language
of surface and depth, of form and function, of information and poetry, of
statement and ornament, etc. What is held up, buttressed, therefore is the
site of a language of construction and effectuation. In thinking through
this site what will arise within it is the ineliminable presence of
conflict; the conflicting logics of construction. They are written with a
writing that will bear out conflict's primordality and as such these
writings will demand a thinking of both construction and effectuation which
in resisting the attribution of the essence (Wesen) - and with it essential
thinking, even a putative redemption of the essence - necessitates taking
up these conflicting possibilities. In distancing the essence, in holding
to conflict, a politics of construction - a construction that will still
allow for writing as itself conflictual - will come to be housed.
On the writing there will always turn another type of adventure, a
different eventuality, another coming-to-be, which itself will already have
turned back upon itself, thereby turning back any simple "itself" thus
causing that change that alters the becoming and which left it - the
writing - no longer an inscription. Neither on it, nor with it, this not
really within it, but as it, as writing itself; the primordially present
actative within substance.
On a turning which in already being present affirms the ineliminable
necessity and with it the anoriginal presence of doubling there must be
another writing. Its possibility demanding another alterity. Demanding
equally to be built upon.
On and within a writing coming to its own by being a complex
inscription - inscribing time within space, holding spaced time - that in
being the only hold of any singularity, is at the same time the only
possible place of its inscription. Singularity's own opening. Writing's
own - that to which writing must own up - is a plurality and thus a
complexity that can never be disowned.
Within this writing the extending range of time must continue to be
noted, noting thereby the already present inscription. Time remains as
always figuring within any productive logic.
On time what will always remain to be added is that any addition will
demand to be thought within that construal of addition as complexity where
the latter demands to be understood as that which has already been subject
to - here the subject of - that which the term names. What will always
need to be taken up therefore is complexity's own complexity.
Within any given term, any apparent simplicity must figure anoriginal
complexity. An already present complexity prior either to addition or
On the surface there will have been no addition since the surface in
being recast will no longer be a simple face on which inscriptions,
additions, supplements, etc., were placed, in order then to have been taken
as an adjunct; a joining marked out as being secondary. With the dispersal
of the surface another logic is demanded, enacted within a different
production. The difficulty is that any dispersal of the traditional
presentation of the surface and therefore of writing as that which figures
on surfaces, in part declaring them to be surfaces, is that it will have to
maintain, again at the same time, what is given, and therefore what is
presented as marking out the surface, what marks that is the presence of a
face, a sur-face.
Within time, thus on the moment that the surface is taken as effaced
it must also, at the same time - a time already complex because of its
harboured and maintained plurality - occasion that doubling that moves the
simple oppositions between surface and depth or writing and content back
from the posited - thus traditional - centrality. Again the same that
resists any reduction to itself. Marking thereby the abeyance of the
On what is given by tradition - a gift that will always already have
been given - it will never be a question of either subtraction (denial,
disavowal, repression, etc.). Refusing is always a form of acceptance.
Change as alteration cannot but maintain a repetition of the Same.
Ornamentation will involve another setting and thus its incorporation into
a different logic.
On, once taken as a designated setting, on here rather than there and
thus as "on" being the apparent provision of any setting, it follows that
the word "on" will itself therefore have to be taken as presupposing a
site, or as a positioning prior either to another positioning or another
placing. With these possibilities it - "on" - marks out a type of
pre-position that is already positioned. This complex site working within
that complex disavowing reduction positions it as the site on which there
is writing, on which there is ornamentation, on which the decoration.
On within doubles, since within what is marked out as being "on", or
indeed of being "in", there will be the automatic effacing of a reduction
that holds the distinction between surface and depth in place. Replacing
become a form of repetition that holds open the possibility of a redemption
working beyond the dominance of the Same.
On any surface there is a decoration. Even if it were functional any
ornament is to be found on the building. And yet the question that must
endure, the one that is still left is the relation between this on and that
which takes place within in? With this question writing and the surface,
with their designations given by their own traditional formulations can be
taken to occupy the same space. Occupying it at the same time. As such
the same open and reopens - opening any positing of an initial and singular
time - allowing in the opening an instantiation with which the same is no
longer able to remain the same as its self. (It is of course that this
position was always there, present as a primordial possibility.) There has
to be therefore another possibility for the same. A possibility that
cannot be the same.
On, taken as that which brings the surface and in bringing it brings
depth will find its position incorporated within a logic that always works
within and in so doing generates the surface, etc. On will have ceedeed
its place to within. In giving that place away it will come to be
repositioned. What will can never be lost is the possibility of holding
on. And yet with it, in holding on, it must be positioned beyond its place
within the oppositions that cannot be held on and thus can no longer be
allowed to hold on.
On figures within, within. Harboured within a another logic. Not the
logic that it to be taken as working within - if that is taken to be simple
opposition to the surface - it is rather another logic one working within,
working the within; in other words that which comprises within's work.
On the end, no matter how arbitrary, what can never be eliminated is
its future enactment, another repetition. Repeating on.
On repetition what can never be excluded is a finality marked out as
on the end.
On however, that which is marked out as being on, can only be
maintained if it is incorporated within that logic - within's work - in
which it will emerge as the always present singular. A singular that is
necessarily secondary and in being secondary is secured as part of that
logic that in taking place within constructs the whole.
Place while given is never just given. More is in place. More will have
always been in place.
Writing about a place - any place - will necessitate that the place be
identified, that it be located and thus that it be placed. Each of these
moments is an activity: identifying, placing, locating. As activities, as
that which is undertaken, they bring with them the ineliminable mark of
mediation. How then is this mediation to be understood? What would be
involved in any attempt to position locating, placing, identifying? The
question of positioning as with that of understanding are made more
difficult by the fact that the activities are thought either to have been
spontaneous or simply to work with the given. Mediation is denied by the
feint of innocence. Once this position is shown to harbour a complexity
that will belie any innocence - rendering that innocence merely putative -
how then are these acts to be understood?
If there is change, if moving from one to the other - from innocence to
complexity - is not a just a moving forward but a moving back allowing for
a possible future what will the time of this movement be? What type of work
will have been undertaken?
With the question - and this will be true of questioning as an activity -
what is brought to bear upon that activity is the actual process that it
seeks to identify. Not the answer but the process/activity itself. What is
the place of questioning? What is placed by it?
Even with the question place insists.
Developing place must be specific; sites will always be specific. And yet
specificity is not just the evocation of this place, the positing of an
already given geography; this place as opposed to that place. Specificity
pertains to that which will always be involved in the thinking of place, of
the location of a site. What comes to be given are the predetermined sites
of meaning; corner, room, building, street, city, region, nation.
With the given - the predetermined present - there are the necessary and
important imposition of relations. Positions captured and held by the play
of prepositions; in. by, between, with, etc. Part of that play will be an
already present implication; one will always be with another.
What is it to question the given? What is the place of such a
questioning? Answering will hinge on the gift and the work of its
inexorable logic. With the gift and its impossible refusal the temporality
of tradition - philosophy's thinking of history - is brought into play.
Here in lieu of place as a simple, place will need to taken with its
necessary interconnection with space. What is at work with the
incorporation of space cannot be accounted for in terms of a simple
addition. Space has not be added on. It is neither emblem nor ornament but
brings with it the attempt - albeit a halting initial attempt - to signal
the already present work of complexity.
With complexity there will be the question of its own understanding. What
will mean to open up complexity? What will have been there?
Once complexity comes to insist as a question then the answers that are
already given will begin to lose their hold. What had been held in place
prior to the opening allowed by the question is the incorporation of
complexity into a schema that locate it in opposition to the simple (the
axiom, the particular, etc) such that the specificity of complexity lay in
its being an amalgam of simples. Complexity became no more than the
consequence of the process of addition. Process here will be a simple
movement that admits of regress. The supposition would be therefore that
complexity can be reduced to it founding simples. What had been built is
able to be broken down and then rebuilt. At work within this already
structured presence is the possibility of a simple beginning. Here
simplicity will take on the guise of innocence and, as with innocence, what
will have been disguised is the insistent presence of a founding
complexity; in other words a set up that is ab initio complex.
Complexity will have started to admit of its own founding complexity.
With the admission process, regress the move from the built to the
rebuilt will have to be rethought and thus recast. Again there will be the
presence of a movement in which an-other set up must emerge.
The interplay of space and place will have to allow for a complex
geography. Once geography has to maintain complexity then the standard
place allocated to geometry may have to change. With it time will have to
be reworked. The temporality of progress and regress will no longer
pertaining an-other time holds sway.