“A serious girl, when she finds someone who calms her spirit and quiets her busy thoughts, will love you so fiercely, it will defy even her own logic and reasoning.”
“I open your legs with my knee so I don’t have to stain my hands on your light. You are burning, luminescent, and I am afraid that if I touch you too deeply you will devour me as the moon devours the sky.”
Before I begin I must thank you for your presence. I know that it is not always easy to show oneself and to be seen. It is difficult due to the risky border that is delineated in any dialogue. Are you seeing me or are you seeing someone else? Indeed, it is this very questionability of the border that makes also beginning a challenge. When did I begin? Have I begun? What does a beginning require in order to begin. Can I set myself sufficiently apart from what proceeded me or will that previous context continue to inform the following act? And become a trace, an inscription from the past re-presented in a present. To begin is both a delineation/centralization and a deconstruction of this center. The word both coincides with and is deferred, different, from itself. Why is this? It is a question of relation. In proclaiming a beginning I am assuming a certain center, in fact I am assuming two centers. The center of what I am saying and the center of what was said. If you did not hear or notice the previous center that I inscribe through my present inscription - the past is in the present. I will come back to the idea of a supplement and how a supplement can be both an element of excess added to and an addition in response to a lack.This ambiguity or double potential cannot be overlooked because it is in other words the condition for deconstruction. If I move this table will the contents on the table still exist? Or is their existence, presence and identity relatively decided? Yes and yes. The answer must be both and. Because in either case, if you disregard the contents relativity or acknowledge it. A center is always constructed. In the first case the center lies within the contents and in the second case it lies outside, in the table. The contents do no longer exist because they are no longer in the same temporal and spacial context. Yet they also do exist even though they are not in the same context. This is because what they existed in relationship to can also be questioned. Maybe they were not on the table to some of us. Maybe we recognize the center of the table in relation to which we identify the contents differently. Consequently, the table might remain to some. Maybe the movement of the table reconfirmed as opposed to destabilize the context and identity of the table to some. Maybe it didn’t move. We must also support the idea that the identity of an object is inherently located and self existing as opposed to with other existing because it’s center can be other to you. We cannot know all of what the object is. We must be hospitable enough to let it stand as before despite the changes. Because, what changed? The center was never determined by all. The crypt is when the center is determined by the object itself and we are not let in. So the object can define itself by itself without others. Because what we consider other may not be other. It might be in correspondence with, be defined relative to, other others.
Now, to begin.
I recognize, despite or perhaps because of my limited knowledge of you, your presence.
To present myself. At the same time I do have secrets and there will inevitably be things that are not disclosed and remain perhaps inaccessible to even myself. However, please note, that even this so called cryptic part that I name self, in this sense, other.