Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

For which my thanks to Bluephoenix4. I thank you, sweetiepie, for your comment, though sometimes I fear that you have been too well taught. Nevertheless.

A further (rhetorical) basis for my attempts at smuggling words in that appear to the uninitiated as mispelt is a general one that conflates with the intertexted banishment of the ego, subtle as this was except to your (extremely well trained) eye: that is the generalised revitalisation of a word from the swamp of general usage, an invigoration of the problematic concealed in its mere conventional corpse, by barely perceptible mutation of its elements. ...

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

For which my thanks to Bluephoenix4. I thank you, sweetiepie, for your comment, though sometimes I fear that you have been too well taught. Nevertheless.

A further (rhetorical) basis for my attempts at smuggling words in that appear to the uninitiated as mispelt is a general one that conflates with the intertexted banishment of the ego, subtle as this was except to your (extremely well trained) eye: that is the generalised revitalisation of a word from the swamp of general usage, an invigoration of the problematic concealed in its mere conventional corpse, by barely perceptible mutation of its elements. I have no doubt that you will see here a reverberation of my arcane references elsewhere to catachresis: the roting of words in an adiscititious imitation of their vitality, though the flat uniformity of their drone does indeed evoke its own ghostly supplement, surely shows that something comes of nothing. Thus uttered, for instance, 'Death is the mother of beauty' and 'No good will come of it' are identical non-statements, and so too nothing is equivalent to something: that is, the bewitchment of language, through its perfect symmetry in which every word refers to every other word, stands ultimately only as contradiction of its own existence, and thus glories with the supplement of absolute possibility. Or not.

Gaudeo capedictum tuum non desitum esse.

Exposita essem, ais, "in rupibus ventosissimis". I know. In my former life, they called me Lorelay. They say, I caused many a conceited skipper's hooker to split on my innocent rock. Je ne regrette rien, wie wir Franken sagen.

abailart said:

smuggling words in that appear to the uninitiated as mispelt [...] banishment of the ego

I see, dear. Banishing the Ego by using the Ego-I restrictively; that sounds intelligible. The remaining Me -- now set free from the observations of the I -- is enabled then to expermeence metself as a model of post-modern deconstructionism: getting rid of the culture-historical, socio-economic flotsam ...

Gaudeo capedictum tuum non desitum esse.

Exposita essem, ais, "in rupibus ventosissimis". I know. In my former life, they called me Lorelay. They say, I caused many a conceited skipper's hooker to split on my innocent rock. Je ne regrette rien, wie wir Franken sagen.

abailart said:

smuggling words in that appear to the uninitiated as mispelt [...] banishment of the ego

I see, dear. Banishing the Ego by using the Ego-I restrictively; that sounds intelligible. The remaining Me -- now set free from the observations of the I -- is enabled then to expermeence metself as a model of post-modern deconstructionism: getting rid of the culture-historical, socio-economic flotsam and jetsam.
Diese Möglichkeiten des „nichtenden“ Verhaltens, says Heidegger, seien Kräfte, in denen das Dasein seine Geworfenheit trage, wenngleich nicht meistere. Es besteht die Aussicht, auf die Höhe des tragenden Seins zu kommen - und die Geworfenheit all derer „mitzutragen“, die nicht verwegen sind und im gewöhnlichen Sinne ängstlich bleiben.
If the Mes stand their divestment stalwartly, they have a chance of discovering their center. (Each structure has a center. -- Derrida)

Or not.

That's the very question, Abi, isn't it?

Vale.

O me miserum
<How to conceive what is outside a text? That which is more or less than a text's own, proper margin? For example, what is other than the text of Western metaphysics? It is certain that the trace which "quickly vanishes in the destiny of Being (and) which unfolds . . . as Western metaphysics" escapes every determination, every name it might receive in the metaphysical text. It is sheltered, and therefor dissimulated, in these names. It does not appear in them as the trace "itself." But this is because it never appear itself, as such. Heidegger also says that difference cannot appear as such: "Lichtung des Unterschiedes kann deshalb auch nicht bedeuten, dass der Unterschied al...

O me miserum
<How to conceive what is outside a text? That which is more or less than a text's own, proper margin? For example, what is other than the text of Western metaphysics? It is certain that the trace which "quickly vanishes in the destiny of Being (and) which unfolds . . . as Western metaphysics" escapes every determination, every name it might receive in the metaphysical text. It is sheltered, and therefor dissimulated, in these names. It does not appear in them as the trace "itself." But this is because it never appear itself, as such. Heidegger also says that difference cannot appear as such: "Lichtung des Unterschiedes kann deshalb auch nicht bedeuten, dass der Unterschied als der Unterschied erscheint." There is no essence of différance; it (is) that which not only could never be appropriated in the as such of its name or its appearing, but also that which threatens the authority of the as such in general, of the presence of the thing itself in its essence. That there is not a proper essence of différance at this point, implies that there is neither a Being nor truth of the play of writing such as it engages différance.>

It will all go on for ever and never.