A

Work from 1973-2000 (fragments)

A-N Towards Art and Language as "in the last analysis"[Writing] does not give rise to a hermeneutic deciphering, to the decoding of a meaning or truth.

If the a priori of this text is not (significantly or is) its subject , as of all texts? and the problematics relating to textuality, the nature of the text but not the texts subject and the subject has a content that normalized grammars will not see it, other than perhaps a set of statements which can appear contradictory, it is both behind and before the writing and not here present in whatever form we consider, is not here a consideration, here it is a mistake, one of many ,'these are never articulated, in the subject, but if at all in the event, this event, which follows the falsification of content and meaning.' Art - or anything other than language, only if we consider that language stands outside its description, or otherwise we need to re cast the text towards its subject at the expense of its guarantees given above, at the expense of being what it has become. This subject itself being free of such guarantees, or systems, or yet to establish any, its pre-established state is not a consequence of its yet to be, or may be, or becoming, or eventuality, if we consider consequences in a particular way, non historical associations for instance. Lets try to be positive, my difficulty of naming is that the arrival of a name legitimates certain moves, rather perhaps there should be a list of names, for no other reason other than a psychological economy, at this instance, which is itself economic , movement, opening, longing, waiting, yet to begin, even in phenomenology the subjectivity of a certain presence which appears before the presence, its presence, preventing the beginning of phenomenology itself, until the activity of phenomenology or anything else takes place and objectifies - or attempts to, de subjectifies at least, fails to ground, yet provides a ground. The subject is represented by a state, a feeling which is a presence which was once established as some movement towards an object, as here it is also. This writing in itself now becomes a movement towards the subjective subject and not a description , or critique, deconstruction etc of it. It then becomes of itself a subject which destabilizes itself, and then moves before this, stepping outside of its own constraints, if it could step, and here it attempts, falsely a signification.

Iconographical metaphysics - here, is a picture of a desired impossibility, it is opaque, which in its desirability, unachangability is a metaphysical 'idea' or picture, the desire, the lack in metaphysics of the cosmos, a lack for the impossible, the incompleteness of that which cannot be complete, not of the created impossible idea, but that being is disrupted not by itself, is itself disruption, desire of desire in our terms, the aporia of language, a priori, the limit to being and knowledge which is indefinable, that which language attempts - is a non-existent ideality, which as the immediate presentation of the present avoids the nihilism of the eternal return of the same's non-teleological presence.

Reading Nietzsche as a paradigm for reading art as language- or art as text -etc.

Reading Nietzsche and relying on a reading, what reading is, in the sense of partial reading or to ask the question how could it be a complete reading, and as to where the contradiction is, where the error is, there, not if any at all, or in here, by recourse to itself, not a recourse to Nietzsche’s, then one can ask, who or what is one reading, and how, and why. How does one deal with such supposed dual, or multiplicity of readings, and potential readings. I'm not answering such a question, in any case a dealing with... is, if not impossible certainly unlikely, so we are left with writing? Potentially difficult in its sense of motivation regarding the empty tautological space - spaces? which are provided. If as we say a contradiction occurs, which is wrong, we invoke a reading of language which might well reduce to either tautologies or contradictions, how then is our reading a reading of anything at all. So if we want to read anything, read in a different way, to a fixing on some contradiction whoever is writing or reading, but to engaging with them, which is very much what I at least would wish to do, as for Nietzsche, the development of his apparent contradictions, though I have tried to point to these, I would not mind playing a further part in whatever activity might take place around them, though this is perhaps a philosophical task, or a task of literary criticism.. for myself however their role is essential in both destabilizing the text, is part of a programme of writing before the logical framework, which is perhaps philosophy, or the end of art, the root of the idea. Around this disruption, which is yet to have a static object to disrupt, this is a site which interests me. We arrive disrupted, confused, yet these words - like all , work backwards from an idea of objectivity- only in some senses- which is an idea of language, and logic. Which places us back with the unspeakable, empty, diseased view of philosophy, metaphysics and questions of art. Not at ease, this is though the artistic condition as a disease, unease, which is to be dealt with, hidden, not -solved by the writing, as important, whether it be good or bad, and the same could be said of speech, yet both are obviously empty- in themselves. They too quickly replace the disease, the disruption with an empty promise. The text disrupts the subject with its objectivity at the cost of this subjective space, at the cost of the subject’s subject ,if this is declined, refused, and silence not entered into, there is something significant here, it is the opening of the text to thought, and thought to the text. Opening up of thought to itself, like an embrace. The embrace that both signifies and is its own subject, we are left with the feeling which language now embraces before a textual problem a problem opens itself to the idea of problem, and the idea of problem to the problem itself, which is present. The referent. Now why is it that the problems idea is hostile towards its referent, is all language the same. Behind this inscribed hostility is a person, who wishes to naturally overpower.

(Lets write towards this, this referent, without violence that wishes to establish a permanence which prevents this.)

(The purpose of this is subordinate. Too simple to be pragmatic or symbolic on some other text, or thing. )

Writing has always been about something written or something other - not of itself, but of the referent of this presence. Not a description, words, or a description of itself, as text. Or what text is. What then is this referent, open, lacking in violence of presence, giving in to itself and anything other. This referent is that which denies itself to itself and so is the prime cause. That is in simple naming and complex metaphysics .

(Language's presence and permanence is a presence, as is all objects, including art objects - even when they do not signify a referent they offer a pretence of objective presence , permanent presence. )

Is a thought reciting, or has it a dynamic before the confrontation with the idea of an object, before it can be referred to. And how is it to be referred to, how is it, its status to be treated, sustained, in the past it was convenient to replace it with a sign. And this is not to recourse to emotive gestures, but complex dynamic systems, a language must be as subtle as this. We have written out simplistic objects and now we are re-writing writing.

There are two sources of instability, one logo-philosophical the other aesthetic-ethic, of consciousness. From the later we do not create or judge objects but create the spaces for itself, its presence in whatever form, or not. This space has a structure which is ontologically missing, absent, not even deferred- or is it in anyway transcendental. It feels incomplete which may provoke an activity towards it which is destructive - and contrary to what is provoked. That is its representation must be in a shifting - a moving- which is possible only now in a certain linguistic light. Literature is fixed and so cannot move in this space. Philosophy destroys it - yet there is nothing philosophically mysterious, imaginary, arbitrary about it, its ethics are our ethics its aesthetic the same, of what could be called instability, the mutability of consciousness in the first case, its move towards something in the second, a move towards a lie, all texts lie.

The need to be positive imposes new tasks on words. One is certain of this incompleteness, because of the impossibility of completion, without completing something else which is then lost to us.

On method.

As historically text structuralizes thought, the avoidance of thinking in a certain way becomes the avoidance of writing as representation, our problem then is best expressed in writing, can only be expressed as both being complex, deferred, unstable, and present in its activity which leaves an unstable mark, in writings uncertainty and complexity. This is not to engage in the meaning of writing but the meaning of thought, the thinking of thought, as an opened meaning of the prior graphical, objective thought, the problem of meaning is not the problem of knowing what one means, this knowledge is always a postori and closes the activity of thought, and so we use meaning in a way more than its historical sense, keeping its historic sense but bringing to it the history of consciousness and its presence, of thought before the event, and not as yet some idea or episteme, and specifically in cases where this involves the presence of ethical and aesthetic consciousness then this is what I will call art.

We then push words - with all they still have and are, into a space on which they need to work harder than before, we overload them now with our self, in this creative, and not created space which is always new, we allow them to become creative, this creation must also now be new, as we are, be new, the word must first uncreate itself to begin to express itself, and through this our self, the presence of itself, first disappears, is disappearing, is a presence , this presence a disappearing of itself, before someone, me, names it, and so before I name anything, even myself.

The actuality, of this intention without an object, or objectivity, perhaps is present as it changes, not in a state change, but rather in the sense of a changing state, one that is never static, and so never one, a none state, before it becomes useful, the activity of this intention, not its object its destination, but the word itself must be altered to reverse its direction to the changing nature it can hold or express, which it is given, to which it pulls away from, doesn’t hold but handle, altering and so is a good word to use here. We say it behaves eventually like an object, but we must not fail to engage even in the impossibility of the object, which we are pressured already to leave our original thought, that which made the art is removed, absented for something other, a thing of truth, and of value. /or other such mythic / idealities- the whole materialist - determinist value system is based on this fallacy, the value of anything including the object itself, it is that there always has been the alternative to the production of the object of value, the uncompleted intention, the actuality of the act becoming something else, never being itself, (a denial of ontologisms ontology- leaving ontology static for a moment!- though perhaps we shouldn’t - firstly a denial is used as an alternative which has to not see its other for a moment in order to generate itself, into a being, which is both a thing and a becoming) which is to the word an act of freedom and creation, something new, a creation which continually creates itself, yet never achieves this, leaving the space for its and anything others, future. (time here can be thought of the present’s movement towards not being here, without this failure of ontology and existence nothing would exist) the art act, this act represents an instantiation of this.

and successfully now - the immediacy not its instantiated object - there is no object- It is both closed off on its own and yet produces, is the act of producing the next process, otherwise nothing including the art - would exist, art's production here is always guaranteed, but always objectless, still to gain a value, always possible. What is produced is different- only by virtue of a conceptualizing it as an object, as such it can gain a value, and this is a description of something other than this, which is then open to deconstruction, philosophizing, critically evaluation and comodification etc.

this text now opens itself into a space which was already present, and we do not decide on some object, even the impossibility of an object, this is not considered. The text is distributed, is formed by the thought, and distributed by the thought, altered by the thought, in this way and not a formative critique of the thought, it does not formulate the thought, the thought persists as something undefined by the text, and so the text does not define even itself.

Now this de-ontologizes but as yet we have no subject , we borrow - an object, in our case 'art', and place it into our subject as the intention of the thoughts content not its intention. We can say more - that this resembles a problem, but one without a solution or the desire of a solution. One again can generalize a metaphysics of sorts from this, of the sort which changes itself into not just a multiplicity, but a process, a number of parallel events rather than a singularity.

we can regard history as being absent, as if it is present its present as something which prevents history.

"Why a text of a particular subject would need to be seen as being empty is in order not to have a reflexive permanent content or even one which is or can be regarded in the light of future textual analysis. "

within this, our practice the text will always be open to its particular subject and in order to do so will need to empty itself, or maybe at least to a hostile reader appear to do so! - to be an abstract class for the subjects world space, it cannot then be either public, or static, which would remove, or allow removal, modification etc. of its particular instantiation , and so allow further reuse, reevaluation, interpretation , analysis and deconstruction- of its content - world space, and not just its abstract methods (there are non), as seen here. That the class, this class, container is deconstructable doesn’t effect the subject which is now separated to what might appear logically to have generated it, though in our case this reversed, logically or gramatologicaly, though not in the non history - pre history of the subjective phenomenon, the source of the text becomes a instantiation which is hidden to the empty generative class and others which it creates, which even generates itself, and as such can take part in a history of analysis etc. as well as safely instantiating its subject, to the extent that the subject is allowed to be itself, regarding itself as an instantiation of its own life world not determined by external logics, grammar, rules bases etc. For instance in relation to its class which it generates and which is so a generative class itself, of itself and others.

The nature of this class and its supposed inheritance and types in the subjective post- theoretical text is reversed, however this in an anti histro-ontological sense must also at some point have been or is the case. The move from subject - object - subjects- is its product, and here the original subject's content is removed or hidden to a critical or hostile reader. It is therefore not the case of demanding specifics if this is only in order to remove them - modify etc. we have placed a special signification in the instant, and one we have said is problematic, and here formally problematic, one then cannot be describable. Such descriptions are other objects, real objects, non problematic in form, in logic, in reality, in metaphysics, maybe, but our initial problematics form, here in this, can derive a class, narrative etc.- a generalized class, but not one capable of producing a critique of it, from some external and therefore illegality, or open it to illegal alteration etc, or even create it, as a text. The point here is the abstract nature of our subjects types of problematic.

The properties of these subjective classes, methods etc, is that they can have, and do have multiple different instances with their own life worlds unlike some universal overarching, and legitimizing, limiting , class or narrative i.e. a determinist object, typical of modernity.

A brief note to begin..

where or when such things developed is an historical interest- morphology, overloading- or hiding of the object, in theory - the synthetic productions of extreme parallelism et al. are historical events within some structure - both- all- generated out of a particular instantiation- and not of a class, or culture, as a productive, pragmatic , capitalist move- the devolvement of hierarchies - networks of various and varying topologies, being actively open to historicizing or being regarded as ontologically present in the past or present or not...-etc. There is yet to be information- this is defined from instances in the form of generalizations, which produces symbols, signs, language, formality and images, tautologies logics, aesthetic screens and finally in this process, this list, epistemologies etc. which is an attempt at a formal generalization- of a 'metaphysical' instance. Such a description in itself could be constructed by reference to an instance- in fact all such generalizations need to be made specific with regard to their genesis, and seen therefore less than they actually appear, language needs to degeneralize itself and rediscover its subject. Otherwise it becomes a legal instrument for the prevention of genesis. - life - experience- process creativity etc.

'or should we consider art as a private language '

Essentially there is only one listener.

Who is it that listens and why, it might be said we listen to familiarize the self - lets compare this to game playing, entertainment or education, having 'pet' theories, and detailed knowledge of given facts. If we wish to explore truth, and thought, and why should we, what would be wrong in not doing so, - we need not to direct thought and consciousness at its own instability but use this as a method of experience of the general…., in any private language, a private language as language without a reader, the excuse for such thinking would validate itself now, which it does so, must do, the compromise occurs only in simple social communications - which legitimate the power of the word, sign, over the signified individual.

Given a reader what we then explore are the limits of communication at its most abstract, any audience revolves around the prospects of fascism, and these problematics - socio-economic -cultural. etc.

Removing these - we still are faced with the continuing problem - that is what as I can I do, and what difference this makes, what difference anything makes in some teleology.

Which is a solution to the working out of the problematic, far from being a sterile phenomenon it is productive, unlike the socio-artistic-conceptualist -etc which inevitably after failing logically - implicit or explicitly- abandons meaning for elegance.

The movement has been to amalgamate the synthetic in avoidance of the logical object to subjective narration, avoiding the hierarchies of questioning which supposed an answer, but a narration of the many problematics - which is both art and the life-world - cosmos,

avoiding metaphysics and such nonsense, which then is not complete but a mark, signification etc. but narration is only an excuse here at signifying the proto-world before objects, which is hidden by the sediments of language, logic and meaning, and against a belief in such devices with their teleological implications.

'That nothing makes a difference.'

We do not need to consider the so called objects of communication in art which fail to make a difference to the psychological being of the phenomenological presence of what has been called the iconography of art - before its logos - and neither the appearances, images, texts grammars etc. - after the epoche - which is after this moment, - we would say prior to perception- are differences seen- these objects fail to difference consciousness- the phenomenology of being - present in the subjective subject which- this - we call here art, - rather the logical structures have been seen both in short terms and in its histories to change - and so articulate - signify - in this subjective revealing of their fictions as objects of the conscious field, of developing an ontology, in which case we see ontologies as pseudo-ontologies as subjects of private iconographies - which appear never to change.

We can as what others have called the / what we would like to call deep/ phenomenological epoche before sign and signifier - before ontology and metaphysics, history etc, this landscape of the particular before its actual description - before it particularizes itself - or is made into an event - as it in it's self consciousness is always identical - with itself- always different to anything else- even when it is an historical event - of remembering, could be considered as a iconographic act, it is - here called art - but elsewhere philosophy etc. and we might consider such an answer to be that its presence is not iconographically opaque - but resides as a universal potential.

This is not a drawn description, it is not a history, not a raw phenomenon , and that then goes for any signification, beyond the subjects subject - as art which could be described not in morphological terms - reusing the language of morphology etc, but in a new language which could be thought of as art as i.e. non signified private language activity- or not - but something far wider - far more complex.

We have described the position regarding logics before the epoche in the phenomenological event as being absent and non foundational, and the dangerous consequences of theory, the old syntactic and semantic rules etc., the use of which is so fatal to subjects which could be described as being empty ,i.e. the history of art and language. With the - so called - but not- empty subjective space the free play can and does allow in certain circumstances - i.e. performative acts etc. - the 'whatever it means to you is what it means' approach, typically cited in post-modernity, which occurs for what may be a number of reasons, which however is not a singular approach if we regard the ethics which are in very simple terms present in the very act of intentionality, seeing, destabilization, instability, phenomenological presence, as presence of a wish or desire ,want, need, etc.

We are then in being honest open to judgment, and in turn offering judgment which communicates prior to meaning and theory etc, prior to symbolic evaluation, which is a significant externality, as well as an internality and such judgments being ethically based are free of tautology, are flexible, unstable themselves, which is here a good, not a bad thing. We can now see how fixed rules, old syntactic and semantic rules, etc, simply wont do in regards to the world. The alternative pragmatic free play - anywhere- but especially throughout all of what is called post modernity is essentially hedonistic, the 'whatever it means to you is what it means' of post-modernity, is hedonistic. In placing ethics before this, it forces a limit on the pragmatic and opens a space in the hedonistic pragmatic field in which once again perhaps we can communicate, that is recognize the difference, the instabilities, between others but primarily first in establishing ourselves, as subjective, dynamic entities, and so remember and so avoid the downside of the 'whatever it means to you is what it means', a kind of eventual chaos from which one is unable to escape, to the extent that even the subject becomes lost. There can be no art here even as absence, (want, need, etc which elsewhere is called instability) for what may or may not be possible, as even when non realization is concrete the wish, desire etc, is effectively dealt with by the propositions of pragmatism.

The morality of intention, position, description, state, desire, wish etc, without which it wouldn’t be is yet another parallel thread.

i should note - though personally there is no need- that the status of "can", is sufficient, a possibility is sufficient, as even its provisional state attributes itself, this problem then doesn’t arise, the pragmatic response if it chooses, is to ignore this, to completely remove it, and so effectively remove everything, and this is why Post-modernity is amoral, it seeks stability and attempts to fix itself, even in its free play. This ethics arises from this, lack of permanent presence, intention, position, description, state, desire, instability, wish etc. ,it is there, as an ethics, a morality, but one which is self aware.

Does this then impose itself on us. i don’t think it does - for then it would destroy this, its own instability .This morality is from outside. The best name.. A society - is this? .. It is irrelevant to ...the actuality of each day, each deconstruction, lack of permanent presence, etc.

Any text tries to stabilize this instability and so it is not ethical, as is any text which opens itself to free play etc. Meaning, answers, questions, provide solutions and these are not moral activities. You can not do anything with this given instability. It destabilizes itself yet fails to remove itself - replaces itself with something else which is itself unstable, incapable of Becoming form, as each form materializes it remains, as an instability.

The problem of art is not simple, simplistic notions just wont do. The phenomenological activity, the epoche, is internal and in all cases is yet to open itself to logic, or philosophical problemizing, it is then a complex problem. It is a problem of intention. To intend to problematize is the causality of modernity, within our work now there is no causality, there is non i think generally in phenomenology anyway. The intention and the problem coexist, in a manner which is not causual, non teleological. The coexistence outside of causality avoids the conclusion of an object. Such complex parallism avoids the lack of dimensionalities of logic. But this is getting prescriptive or descriptive of the very unfixed problematic state. We do not need to use words in new ways. We need to avoid prescriptive logics and clever tricks. External ideas. we are still in the wrong mental set, still looking

but what we can do is a decisive step away from even intention and problem, otherwise we are bound to these by some causal logic, some ethics of empiricism, of phenomenologisism.

And here we can as it were we use language differently.

intentionality is the product of a primitive instability. It follows that all texts are provisionally unstable. what is it then which singles this out. Firstly its reluctance to take this on, secondly its own intention as an intention. This looks like tautology, but it isn’t in that it distances itself from itself and differentiates itself from itself.

The moment of recognition of the problematic of distancing in intention is a phenomenological event before the decisive act, which in this case apriori will not become decisive, the decision is this recognition of what becomes, what always is unrecognizable what is not accurately casually describable.

I can see a potential criticism in a lack of difference, and such a problematic might be considered as a new subject, a good thing , a new source of discussion, however its really a kind of metaphysical criticism, and we are operating beneath this, before it. And so the first answer, a metaphysical answer, is that we are not doing metaphysics, though there might Be an analogous opportunity in metaphysics. There are I think however other answers which do not depend on any metaphysical critique.

I suppose a logical one is simply that we will only find identity in an ideality,

and we are seeing the destabilization of our intention as not a consequence of our intentionality towards an ideality but as a deliberate act, of a phenomenological epoche which subjectively is always different.

The refusal to give in to logical difference, or not, is a refusal to engage with the metaphysics of logic or the logic of logic.

There are others, from elsewhere we know that the play of difference de stabilizes a status quo, the signified , the signifier is the play of difference.

That identicalities are, is an aporia,

The identity of indecernables maybe like wise and the contradictions of the eternal return etc. Our difference however lies in the relation of our problematic towards itself, firstly recognizing it as described as an internal destabilizing source and so deliberately before this logical - empirical destabilization takes place, intending a prior destabilization as a phenomenological intention, and this has to Be different. even before logic establishes its difference, or the phenomenological realization does as we intended it in the first place, destabilization is always present, always different. If it were not then we have an ideality, which is firstly impossible, but more importantly not wanted, not present, as its presence would remove the problematic. That is the old mistake.

The space in which this specific language describes its subject is uncertain, as is the ability for any descriptive process to take place. This was termed our problem, and by others seen as a final act of some reductionist step. The examination or re-examination of such texts is another activity in its self. A text may have to have a subject - a pre text - and yet in itself can develop other subjects, this is where we might differentiate ourselves from some deconstructionist program of making something new. Our pre textual intention is art as not a reductive questioning, which borrows much from analytical philosophy, but as a destabilizing process, recognizing itself and it simultaneous subject. the goal here is not an ontological destabilization, and not the destabilizing of something, anything else. Its fairly obvious why this should be so, the move towards abstraction is as good an example as any where Destabilizing the ontology may well be seen as the problematic. Or in conceptualism... But as soon as we realize the problematic the artwork is realized and completed. Yet a repetition or copy of this work is no longer considered art is perhaps the result of the removal of the problematic and not the primacy of a solution. The primacy of solution paradigm was effectively removed by the failure or success of conceptualism which in effect nullified the idea of art. It became an ideality. Anyway without the problematics of art there would be no art. This very thing is after all what we want, what the whole thing is about. The insight is sufficient to see how then it is possible to continue. Historically but not presently Each time we find a problem it is a case or possible site for how we deal with its actuality. Modernism mistakenly attempted an analysis , a kind of enlightenment ethic, one in which understanding mapped the limits of the cosmos, we could do art, the evidence of this is still in the museums. A conceptual critique of this only refined art into the problem of art to be dealt with. Not other problems for Intentional activities do not occupy physical spaces and problems within them are not concepts or theory. We do not have to prove our questioning here, or is it an empty question, remember we had an intention, a motive for doing this. This problem may well be an indication of the scale, an infinite scale, of the difference between the ideality and the intention. I am not concerned with the ontology of the ideality, or any special supposition which we can place in the most pessimistic of places, but with the danger of some self satisfied description. This simply will not do, is disrupted by all kinds of externalities, but the artistic move here is our intention to disrupt it ourselves. Or better at the same time finding this.. Ontology, of any kind, has absolutely nothing to do with art from our point of view, as an artist. The phenomenology of the question -not why we question - is the artistic act. The question has a content not based around this ideality of art and our attitude towards it, it is there already fully developed. Our attitude towards it is not as an ideality, we simply cant compare, it's another’s problem, with no stable epistemological framework, no doubt as serious a problem as ours is. The framework itself appears as a transcendental question. And this is wrong from an art practice point of view, it must be reversed, we are again attempting to say something about art as ideality, yet what is actually happening is something to do with our intentionality, it's the cause of our problem, its obvious that it is, we feel it so. There could be all kinds of reasons for these problems, as exposed by analysis, philosophy etc. and there might in principle be a way of dealing with them, from outside, or we could simply pragmatically ignore them, but here is our move as artist, we want a particular problem to be a phenomenological instance, we intended this to be so. Any acceptance stops our activity. There is no need to underline this act as a kind of objective framing. All previous ideas of transcendence, overcoming, re-stating, refining, making, etc are not questioned, but the intentionality is so framed as to open itself to itself , and not some other problem. That is our aim is not an arbitrary questioning or revision, our aim moves no further than itself as question. This is a very particular kind of question empty of any content except itself, and that is why it cant be answered and that is why is can be validated if it needs to be. Each time the moment of this question is realized we have another site for an art work. It is never though some intention at ideality, it has been realized in post-reductionism terms that it is itself which is the only possibility.

Intentionalities may be regarded as some objective ideality, but I would not like to do so here. There is no value in this, what I want is not a foundation building exercise, this quickly looks like tautology if it keeps to some set of consistent rules. This new space is uncertain, the process disruptive. And neither do we want imaginary objects, if everything is provisional then its that which we need to destabilize. It appears I am doing something I cant do, not just setting up things to be knocked down or are we making progressive systems.

Language is once again at the service of experience, and not supplying any donotic insight or bags of rules. The mistaken confusion was elaborated so that the method became the arbiter, the confusion was and is real, the problematic also, and the interplay between the various significant systems something quite other, the problematic is both pre and post linguistics, things like meaning and use. The awareness of the problematic was never intended first as being useful, it is after all a morphological feature in the past. How meaning, words, work here is radicalized and not random. Syntactically if allowed to run its course language eventually empties itself. But these problematic of meaning exposed the remaining phenomenology of the real, and what well call the intentional subjective problematic of art, once the structures of meaning in language are removed. That is this is not a question but the presence of absence, elsewhere described as instability, absence of ideality, recognition of the possible presence of an ideality yet still intending it. The criteria for impossibility and contradiction being removed not by the failure of language but by the continuation of our wish to hold on to this unresolved, unresolveable.... A captured image of a movement which removes itself in its movement.

We have moved beyond process of destabilization as casual intentionality into actual destabilization as an apriori. So we have removed the worry of what to do, the difficulty of what to do, causality is planning and planning gives rise to causality, and causality gives rise to objects, whether material or not as signifiers of something which cannot be signified, in a field of truth mapped by untruths.

Language as meaning is only one object among others, and meaning is a finality. An excuse. The reuse of it in evidencing these unstable phenomenologisims could be described as representing a new abstraction of representationalism. It is then seen philosophically, where old philosophy looked for meaning and stability, as negative phenomenology, a negative philosophy though not anti-philosophical.

The philosophical here is used as another analogy of what we are doing. We talk about the problems of philosophy , the problems of art, as something to be solved, something to be dealt with, yet the word arises after the fact and logic after the word...

This is not to dismiss logic or language as a pragmatic structure. No matter how well it accounts something remains which is not a wish, romantic, mystical presence, but can be described as a problematic presence towards which our intentionality can not causally be placed. They remain layered together outside of a, the, sentence with absent ideality etc etc, in no conceptual chain. The problematic destabilizing itself, its ontology, its epistemology, etc etc. . After all surely it must do that.

Intentionality and the exposure of is problematic could be described as a descriptive attempt which does not engage in art activity, but this is a naive approach, if the activity was to set itself as the area for the problem to exist in it would play a role.

However when we focus on this problem we see it is not a problem at all in any ordinary sense. Or is it a casual process. Now I am not engaging in a kind of metaphysics about this non objective non subjective intended, having dismissed the ideality as an impossible intention, it is no longer the impossibility of the intention towards an ideality which is a cause of failure. Only historically. An historical naivety which is beside the point, we cant really say anything like this, as its about this that we do not concern ourselves without concerning ourselves with ontology. Or are we drawing up lists, we are engaging in the actual activity of an intention towards art. Other things of course appear, we are not naive purists, or boring tautologists. Or can we abstract some kind of formulae- such as ……... Its not a question of epistemology. There is neither a multiplicity or a singularity. This not a pre chaotic state of undifferentiates which appears post analytically, but the result of an intentional act towards a ideality. Not (a subjectification of the object or attempt at objectivity, the ideal remains an impossibility, the subjective remains as a totality. But there is no point to this. We have chaos- subjectivity, pragmatics, wishful thinking, and the impossible idealality. We regard the ideality as a site of failure of both subject, and object. However we are not bothered with (this) failure.

The event around idealities and language, of pragmatics and their limits regarding idealities has first pragmatically removed idealities from consideration by some, but by others placed them in an unreachable location, and importantly opened up the ground between the absolute of the ideality and the pragmatics of the subject. This has to be a generalized ground at its limits- at the ideal, but between such convergent idealities we have an intentional space which can have titles such as art philosophy science , mathematics etc. The intentionality moves us from the pragmatics of a null subjectivity into this field. There is no reason for this to be a negative field but we need to be aware of the nature of this fields instability, it is essentially unstable, neither a subjective pragmatic, which can be fixed, a decision, or an actual impossible ideality. The metaphysics of this instability is interesting but surely it is undecideable as to their causalities.

What we have are the intentional spaces which we have described above, spaces which are essentially unlimited.

It now requires us to see how such essentialities can themselves be destabilized, are destabilizing. This is relatively simple, an simple intentionality will do.

Elsewhere texts have attempted a critical and positive step from a multiplicity of possibilities- which are not considered as objects, writing, communications, internalities, and these texts have exposed these themes. To re-examine these would be like going backwards to synthesize an object out of its fragments. But already we have fallen victim to objectivity. What we have discovered as essential is a critical subjectivity of destabilization. Superficially it might be difficult to see anything wrong with this , however in not doing so we might be seen to be replacing its move, one of destabilization with another objectivity, or attempted objectivity, or illusion of an objectivity. We might once again find ourselves in a determinist descriptive world trying to do things such as figure out what art is.

the powerful lessons learnt, the significant discoveries of the absence of the art object was a reductionism and objective fact. Its the nature of this fact which can despite its apparent negativity ensure the very thing we want. A destabilizing activity, a subjectivity attaching itself to subjectivity in order to objectify itself. The condition of pseudo theories such as other texts, is such that they can appear to objectify themselves in order to be effective and so their very success is a failure. Inhibiting other texts, and being essentially now a dead object. Such writing as other art before, essentially closes down everything. And we can dream up any number of sentences of the kind which point things out , even negatively. Self destabilization might be thought to be an ideal, but only in the sense that idealities are simply not allowed. A trite recourse to failed idealities misplaces or replaces the dynamics of non textual, non prescriptive discussion, activities etc. That something is said actualizes a destabilizing feature is only a logical and not artistic process. That offering meaning or abdicating it is also I think wrong. To ask What are your intentions is the response to this, intetionalization cuts things off, stops them straight away, what things of course, neither. Both. Not neither but not in some middle ground, there has to be a radical use of language here which avoids certain placements, maybe all placements.

To cite something else is a grounding and therefore a bad move, a halting move. What’s wrong then is this, this very agreement.

We should not cite the... as pun on site. There is no site. Neither is there a non-site. Such sentences are difficult and potentially dangerous. We need something not closed off, open , dynamic, non coding in a fixed way. The very play of codability non codabilty is not our business, it is just that we find this is a potential problem in misunderstanding the kind of structure we have, and how the word structure is being used. perhaps It is the non objectivity of the texts focus and not the texts non objectivity, disability, which is important. Any textual disability is besides the point. The real de-stability here - is here already, and wanted , but here already.. There are numerous things of uncertainty here. Intention, reality, subject, aporia of action. We break open the question, we don’t question it in some hall of mirrors fashion, or remove it. We have radicalized the geography of the sentence and its causal chains, as they are responsible for placing stability as a universal. and we are then in this new place. Such a position has no relation to an object, is neither outside or inside the object, the object becomes not unbounded but its boundaries are no longer binding. It is the essential activity which only appears contradictory if we regard words such as ‘problem’ as meaning something quite specific, i.e. Not problematic. This fault is to be sorted out elsewhere, but here it does not name but generates the problem as itself. The record of this, the reading of this is not a de coding , problem to solution, which implies a set possibilities of success, yet the success of this here now has been assured in its own intention , and its own uncertainty is the guarantee and proof. We move on to uncertainty and intention.

From a causal point of view and ignoring (I can I think borrow a term here - under erasure) both matter, and media* , we can move on to examine the play of logic and meaning, and here we can question meaning as it relates to art, or, and art practice , we should return to this and or.... what occurs …… here at this point is a splitting, as opposed to a synthesis, (a very non dialectical move, an alternative dialectical move subsumes everything into the absolute...There art and every specificity disappears ) and at such a split the opportunity to move in two directions occurs, we have choice rather than a synthesis, yet perhaps only one of these can now validate the artist and art. .. Only one of these non synthetic choices is now - has now become - or is becoming - the artistic move. A separating out of a particular intention. (Later and elsewhere the meaning of meaning is itself split, deconstructed, etc.) What is left on the other side of our question of the meaning of art from the question of meaning could be called a place for art activity to take place. Is always the place it takes place. A conditional hiving off is a disruptive destabilizing activity in which where the one side relates to a move towards art is questionably art, the other to other objects etc. We pursue , now historically, the process through ontology towards a negativity, but this too can be destabilized, fragmented, questioned. And again a split occurs and a choice has to be made. This now appears like an endless and logical causal chain, it is perhaps the play of logic into meaninglessness, an exposure of meanings inability to mean anything- even nothing- a metaphysics of nothing, and or a metaphysical failure, it is always attempting to capture what is outside, and a decisive choice here has to be based on our initial and continued intention- and it this in causal terms which is what accounts for its non-philosophical move, away from problems of being - Metaphysics etc

A move which was not a move but an exposure of what was already present, and the intentionality which remains in this presence. I would call this a non pragmatic move as it does not any longer have any ideas about solutions.

In this non pragmatic move into a space outside of pure subjectivity? Or not - in the senses or arbitrariness, pure objectivity or intentional objectivity, we do not become involved in philosophy, even a radical philosophy - a philosophy which perhaps can also occupy such a space, or become involved with trivial objects. Dead cows for instance. I make these points here to avoid any confusion as to what we are doing or better intending,; intention is here may well be crucial.

Where we are now is beyond the word itself as something stable, and beyond the instabilities which Modernity either failed to deal with, or discovered, such as how things and substances differentiate themselves, that there is here a particular thing before its name could be particularized. How this coalesced how it can be de- coalesced, and through ideas of instability in communication taking place, how these are questioned etc. Therefore the position of the word the text, the before or after the word as something definite, we do not single out, or use this as a critique or a methodology or better an intentionality that we already had, this itself, is now not as it was, an imaging, a means of producing a set of propositions.

Numerous structures now disappear, which can be, have and are being critically considered, this as opposed to a negation, a negative reductionist move, there dissapperance leaves a presence. (Without meaning, meaningless too disappears, nihilism is the product, a result of logic.)

The ideas that are essentially against this negative, reductionist move need not be followed, we can consider these structuralist, outside art with their own problematics. If we consider all reductionist moves might arrive at dead ends, they destabilize reading and logic, and this removes them, does not put them under erasure, regarding art activity, the move in art which apparently arrived at a dead end, is removed. This is one removal, from outside. The second more radical removal is internal and simply rejects reductionisms conclusion, after allowing it, on the empirical evidence, there is something still present. Even if it were not we could intend it. what was exposed in reductionism was a displacement of idealities, now the location of these may be regarded as a dead end if one regards the absolute ideality as a possible reality, or as achievable, but now its removal or arrival has not removed our intention or ability to do so. Its removal, or arrival has made it possible to defend ourselves from being called unreasonable, or meaningless, as in it total presence there is something else, or a possible intention, and in its absence there is a presence or possible intention.

And so we have a very limited pretext in which to work, because of the removal of certain spaces, structures, logics et al. Spaces between perfect - (and non realizable) idealities, and complete but pragmatic subjectivities.

Any number of destabilizing texts may appear, and appear possible and we can admire these, appreciate these but we are now as it were underneath them. They are destabilized by our intention - which we now see which is neither pragmatically fixed or ideally fixed. The very failure of modernity which produced such an instability such un certainty gave us a methodology - and importantly showed an alternative, perhaps in its own confusion gave us the opportunity to see that the problematic of art remained, and we wanted it to remain, we actually liked and like it.

As for the pragmatics of stabilization, justification within post-modernism, these old forms are ok, they have in the face of the destabilization chose to ignore what was empirically exposed, which I think in effect has been to ignore art as an intentional activity.

It may be a legitimate move to not become involved in other activities - but certainly if we avoid the problematics regarding art, we avoid art altogether.

*This ignoring is a token for a complex activity of analysis perhaps best regarded from other disciplines. The term is not pejorative either externally or internally. But importantly we are not ignoring our particular intentionality.

Any text sets out to say something in a certain denotative way must be suspect with regards to art activity.

We do not want to talk about the problematics of text, or texts, here. Art has consistently refused to engage in the problematics of any given text, theme or subject. In particular it seems to locate only to draw attention to what it is not, only to displace these objects, text or not. From an art point of view the textual structures like any other structures are of no concern in themselves, in their histories, this is even at the extreme of ignoring the truth, or radically not having any serious regard for the technicalities of any science, semiotics etc, such as even the status of the signifier and the signified. Their relationships, status, histories etc. This is why I have said elsewhere we have in comparison a radicalization of the use of language. However the text here, is not through its formalities in error regarding art, its error must be elsewhere, actually in its stability. This does not mean that the textual move was a mistake, those who have called such a move a blind alley were I think mistaken. It was the only possible route away from the physical object art object paradigm. The so called failure in textuality was in a way to be expected the same kind of thing happened elsewhere when chasing such absolutes. So also To engage in semantic meaning, or nonsense, or poetics is mistaken even if it is not a blind alley, as is analysis of any kind whatever, psychological, philosophical, metaphysical etc.

Formally the texts records - badly - but its the best we can do - the art practice, its properties then are irrelevant, relevant is, or better was, the ability to pose in text a question. Distinguishing itself as text was irrelevant to art, so text is mere pragmatics, and that is why it becomes radicalized. What can be said as a detailed questioning, critical, responsive process etc cannot be achieved in other media, where we see the - you see what you want attitude regarding gallery objects, the gallery situation was only ever a very primitive formal presentation of completed stable objects. The objects here are closed, anthropomorphically dead, and speechless. But another possibility is that of speech, the relationship of text to speech need not concern us - in the face of other media the questions that are raised are phonetic, whether speech or writing, it is the structural purpose as use which was important and still is, that is significant in pushing the problematic of art further, we could look at the question, the thought, But not to- again- question its process but to show its failure. to phrase this positively, this becomes what art is, as seen, experienced.

the radicalization of this language is the result of the radicalization of the art activity,

How is it that idealities became a problem is resolved in their position as problems. Art - as art may function as some semiotic / philosophic or pseudo-philosophic tool, whatever art as art means, outside yet defending this tendency and such an activity might be socially very useful, but so might be our radicalization. we are after all trying. Whatever, I am not heading towards some wonderful derridaian autonomy, even if , and I doubt it, it happens. Ones own psychological position is difficult; which is symptomatic but in no way conclusive. Whatever. Is it like this or like that, whatever, it is specific. And here is something someone might say is an original and positive statement. Although specification is kind of boundary drawing. We must move on. we must avoid solutions, why? Why cant these equally become radicalized. This after all could be called a solution. this activity - which is art - is fundamentally illuminating in the nature of things. It might from outside validate its morphology.

So if we are not satisfied with this, how psychologically fatal this would be.

"doubt can exist only where a question exists" Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Firstly and historically, 'art' is the instability of its own definition, the instability of its signifier and the instability of its signified. Secondly art in late modernism - in conceptualism, is the instability of the ideas around its ontology.. Whether this reflects a cultural, philosophical , biological , or even cosmological - metaphysical - fact, is besides the point from an art point of view. The artist engages in the instability, is its actor. The mistake, and part of the de-stabilization , is looking for final definitions. And of course now here is such a mistake. But allusions to philosophy -biology - history - art history - culture - parody - humor - politics are even more besides the point. we do not define either negatively or positively, but create the instability, or rather point it out in the now present, now present text. This text's status as art is (then) essentially unstable?

Critically we are caught between logical certainties and methodologies - we note Nietzsche - heidegger and derrida's challenges, questioning of truth, logocentricism et al. - or something nonsensical, even poetic.

That there is a general epistemological instability is interesting,(outside or above and so inclusive of art), if art was to be descriptive it would certainly define this general - philosophical- metaphysical instability - elsewhere called deconstruction. I might even criticize the term if I was not principally interested here in art, and not here! interested in philosophy, ontology etc.. The prima-facie case I will go on to make isn't the historical instability but the inherent instability here now, and the nature of this, its proper naming, or inability to do so. The status of this work as art does not lie in its willingness to be uncertain, unstable, any critical position is in itself challengeable, I could imbed such a challenge here, but that it attempts to indicate that the problematic remains no matter what. Why this defacto or de jour cannot be realized is obvious- though maybe it should be re stated, its restatement can again be challenged. Remember Russell's remarks regarding the tractatus - it throws up an uncertainty as to truth. Yet here we don’t even have any given criteria as to the significance of truth, or whatever. We are left with the art and its ontology having a greater uncertainty, instability - if you like than philosophy, in Russell's sense, but perhaps not elsewhere. However its only psychologically reassuring to find oneself in company, there is no internal assurance as to right or wrong. Both absolute positions and any other are questionable. And so on and so on.

Perhaps at this point we need to say more about materials, however such a discussion would be a kind of anthropological investigation, texts as signs are simple in pragmatic terms. Specifically its the conceptual instability and not the physical instability which makes us artists and not physicists, galleries and objects represent places for the physics of instability to be demonstrated. And restoration does not restore art back to the object. so I would consider the method of writing firstly as pragmatic, though there are difficulties with this, in how we write, with regard to meaning as expressed in language as being casual or logical, problems with the idea of equivalents etc.

The legitimating of the art practice has to be in the first place with the artist, how do you know you are doing art unless you are questioning the activity , other wise you are probably doing something quite different and allowing some external definition- and so some external person as artist.

modern day impressionist painters are painters, modern day conceptualists are conceptualists

so we need to reject the idea of concept as art, but still accept the discussion. The Judd dictum about anyone calling anything art is an excellent example. It relates to a specific historical destabilizing, and the product of a new- and Judd’s- position, which is a new definition, or art object. Its truth or not is not as important as the ability to take up views about it. That is destabilize its objectivity. In a way he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

The recognition here is that we cant get answers which are in anyway fixed. Consumerism maybe demands a pragmatic art, and that has been typical of post-modernism but in our definition it isn’t art at all, as its taken the pragmatic step of making a decision, it enters the gallery- or re-enters- and so there is nothing more to be said , nothing more to see, nothing more to do, the artistic move here was - if any - the moment of curatorial decision, however in reality the curatorial position has already presupposed art and its objects. One does not re-discover America these days. One might discover something of it, but any object based curatorial or artist- move is now about objects, and I include concepts, politics, feminism, et al. And others. In other words not art. As artists brought in by questioning other things, so they are excluded - or else everything is included. the point of the pragmatic inclusive decision is we then have to either discuss it or not. The objects then are if we do, clearly not the same, we then maybe wish to back down from this position, but again so long as we are doing the thinking its us that is realizing the art. The object once this process is over returns to it original and pre-artistic state. Just as in aestheticism, once no longer beautiful the object returns to its original state. Once the Beautiful is separated from art by a questioning process, a raising of doubt in modernity of the qualification of a objects properties as art we move to other considerations. However even when the aesthetic was concerned as being an attribute its nature was also unstable. The de-stabilizing of the material object-art paradigm was the achievement of conceptualism.

This was only one in a series of destabilizations, of representation, of subject, of content etc which was modernity.

Conceptualists first engaged with the concept as object. Objectivity followed to a collapse in the ability to find a stable conceptual object at all. All this is history, and as such Belongs in a museum. The move was not made in which Not the concept as object but concept as process before the object was arrived at. Such a destination is of course outside of art, which explains why it was avoided.

But the alternative seemed to put an end to any activity at all, other than subjective and empty gesture. However if the radical move was made and the subjectivity of post modernity’s rush to make objects, again, is avoided we are not, as it was thought left with nothing, left with nothing to do. In removing the historical edifice of modernity we actually do expose something. At the very minimum a space for intentionality, which is not the excuse for objects.

The destabilizing process at this point does not collapse into nothing, for the same reason as the removal of a philosophical system does not remove its cause, there was a cause and before this cause gained its causality a presence, and in the absence of a presence the space for an intention. The failure of a logical system due to internal inconsistencies does not necessarily remove the reasons , the intentions for its use, and these need not be some other inconsistency. Logical, metaphysical, biological, cosmological etc. Its possible still to want to do something and until we say what it is we cant say its a mistake.

'Generalizations -in art and philosophy' where we can refer to 'this'. and not a specific- and this is maybe sufficient, so sufficient then that specific disciplines, activities and subjects must too be generalized. Intentionally - is a modified metaphysics, a modified process or even a modified theology, we are in effect dealing with de-polymorphic activities, pre conceptual attitudes

etc. - before specifics- is an interesting area in which to be. /sic/

Missing - this- as in a consideration of non presence and the need to now show that we can avoid missing premises is a possible tactic of both this activity and its simultaneous writing. These become specifics in themselves, and not dialectical subjects / objects/ we are not interested in dialectics.

'That nothing makes a difference.' - we do not need to consider the so called objects of communication in art which fail to make a difference to the psychological being of the phenomenological presence of what has been called the iconography of art - before its logos - and neither the appearances, images, texts grammars etc. - after the epoche - which is after this moment, - we would say prior to perception- are differences seen- these objects fail to difference consciousness- the phenomenology of being - present in the subjective subject which- this - we call here art, - rather the logical structures have been seen both in short terms and in its histories to change - and so articulate - signify - in this subjective revealing of their fictions as objects of the conscious field, of developing an ontology, in which case we see ontologies as pseudo-ontologies as subjects of private iconographies - which appear never to change.

'or should we consider art as a private language '

Essentially there is only one listener.

Removing these - we still are faced with the continuing problem - that is what as I can I do, and what difference this makes, what difference anything makes in some teleology.

Where we might have said….A brief note to begin.. where or when such things developed is an historical interest- morphology, overloading- or hiding of the object, in theory - the synthetic productions of extreme parallelism et al. are historical events within some structure - both- all- generated out of a particular instantiation- and not of a class, or culture, as a productive, pragmatic , capitalist move- the devolvement of hierarchies - networks of various and varying topologies, being actively open to historicizing or being regarded as ontologically present in the past or present or not...-etc. There is yet to be information- this is defined from instances in the form of generalizations, which produces symbols, signs, language, formality and images, tautologies logics, aesthetic screens and finally in this process, this list, epistemologies etc. which is an attempt at a formal generalization- of a 'metaphysical' instance. Such a description in itself could be constructed by reference to an instance- in fact all such generalizations need to be made specific with regard to their genesis, and seen therefore less than they actually appear, language needs to degeneralize itself and rediscover its subject. Otherwise it becomes a legal instrument for the prevention of genesis. - life - experience- process creativity etc.

we can regard history as being absent, as if it is present its present as something which prevents history.

On method- as historically text structuralizes thought, the avoidance of thinking in a certain way becomes the avoidance of writing as representation, our problem then is best expressed in writing, can only be expressed as both being complex, deferred, unstable, and present in its activity which leaves an unstable mark, in writings uncertainty and complexity. This is not to engage in the meaning of writing but the meaning of thought, the thinking of thought, as an opened meaning of the prior graphical, objective thought, the problem of meaning is not the problem of knowing what one means, this knowledge is always a postori and closes the activity of thought, and so we use meaning in a way more than its historical sense, keeping its historic sense but bringing to it the history of consciousness and its presence, of thought before the event, and not as yet some idea or episteme, and specifically in cases where this involves the presence of ethical and aesthetic consciousness then this is what I will call art.

(Lets write towards this, this referent, without violence that wishes to establish a permanence which prevents this.)

(The purpose of this is subordinate. Too simple to be pragmatic or symbolic on some other text, or thing. )

The need to be positive imposes new tasks on words. One is certain of this incompleteness, because of the impossibility of completion, without completing something else which is then lost to us.

Reading Nietzsche as a paradigm for reading art as language- or art as text -etc.

But the call to the thing itself is at the same time directed against historicism, which gets lost in treatises about the standpoints of philosophy and in the ordering of types of philosophical world views - as already noted, neither have we committed this time / structure to be linear, branching, dense or discrete etc. The answer to the pseudo-metaphysical question is not that we must revise these restrictions so as to provide for such cases, some poststructuralist semiotics as social semiotics are concerned with signifying practices in specific social contexts but we employ modalities in doing the former, of course, in what was called abstraction, in which we are aware of the difference between the modalities but we do not isolate them.

Much as we would make much of this agreement to write as an end in itself, even calling it one of the few unanimous decisions we took, and given the above analysis of the conclusion of transcendental deduction, which demonstrates that all synthesis is subject to the categories, it is puzzling to find for instance Kant claiming that the unity of formal intuition precedes all concepts, yet presupposes a synthesis. In the (new) Aesthetic I have treated this unity as belonging merely to sensibility, simply in order to emphasize that it precedes all concepts, although it indeed presupposes a synthesis which does not belong to the senses, but through which all concepts first become possible. We have little interest in modern metaphysics which regards itself with respect to the new absolutes of foundationialism and tries by means of this, its own grounding, to integrate the other sciences , philosphies etc. as a pre-ontological knowledge according to its own standards of truth; or the opposite case, the modern philosophies, theories etc which makes of themselves absolute foundations and, if need be, appropriates elements of metaphysics according to its own methodology by this process the whole as such, surveying its entire content, itself emerges out of this wealth wherein its process of reflection seemed to be lost.

In the light of such conclusions, our question is not fundamentally about the certainty of knowledge, signs, symbols, speech and writing on the basis of the, states, affections and what holds for consciousness, that holds here for so called subjective existence in general. On the contrary, we understand ideas primarily in the act of using them; reflective, theoretical awareness of them as distinct, extant things which develop from these, after all, would be quite possible in view of the difficulty of effecting a transition from metaphysics to another kind of thinking. It is often very difficult to be able to decide what predicates are to be taken as primitives and which are to be defined via suitable nominal definitions outside of metaphysics yet inside art, nothing like what is called the explanation of the manner in which a priori concepts which can relate to objects.

Connections with intuitionistic’s were noticed early on and toposes are still used to investigate models of various aspects of intuitionis, instead of the inner activity and self, movement of its own actual intention, such a simple determination of direct intuition, Anschauung which means here sense, knowledge is predicated in accordance with a superficial analogy, and this external and empty application of the formula is a false construction. There has been a strong though by no means unanimous trend in development of such conceptualism, when new techniques for understanding art were supposedly being developed and that understanding itself was being transformed! (sic) Kant described what this in effect was as the relationship between the critique of reason and the science of metaphysics which has to be grounded anew by means of the concept of transcendental philosophy, I would not wish to use the title transcendental with relation to knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects, Kant did not demand that one completely do without these instruments in philosophical knowledge, but that one should become aware of their specific difference of performance in the respective knowledge of the object itself - and this would prove useful in particular, it will be useful to see whether this sort of theisis or objection towards a theoretical positioning is involved in anything which would follow from the truth the universality of any logical set of events as practiced by the phenomenologist qua artist - non conceptually, from the very beginning the universality in which he or she becomes the totality of his/her practice? - processes bring about objects not only as a thematic of the individual processes of intentionalities and thereby discloses its noematic components; it further directs itself on the intentions of the activity, which lies in both the history and programme of conceptual art towards this relative presence. Similarly, because of this external and historical - instituitional hostility towards such structures we have here now something under such a risk - even towards the empirical research and deductive - analytic logics of post -modernity in general.

The fundamental meaning of exactness in all of this lies in its being founded on an a priori formal system where each part unfolded in a specific act which can through praxis produce theory similar to general theories elsewhere - we see talk of theories of ethics etc. theories of pure concept, theory of idea, etc for a hermeneutics described as a condition, at the outset as the unbreachable basis for its method, that can avoid problems - an alienation between the physical and the natural as an instance.. (Looking at the arguments in the foregoing paragraphs what legitimates the value judgements if they relate to old teleological requirements or tendencies - such primitives in logic which rested on the idea that if any two sentences mean the same, then they are about the same things- and this is in effect challenged.) In contrast to these sets codes we may be forced by some considerations to adopting non codes - structurally simpler objects which critically are pushed to the point of being empty - empty of symbolic meaning but not of some empirical concept - which then can generate a basic for semotics etc. , originally - like in history not employing standard conventions and formulas , so they can generate cliches and stereotypes brought to stand in being called to cast itself as self in one of its possibilities of existing and committing itself to a draft of itself .

The empirical does not allow for the evaluation of normative claims especially if its own is a separate point from the critique of the general importance of certainty and control in The New Art, thus, even though Derrida can say that diffrance is the condition of possibility for presence, he will not permit this term to be recuperated and thence become the site of origin itself - this has an obvious importance to us here. Now how do things stand in relation to this subjectivity? Modern theories of self, organization phenomena have several roots which did look for control hierarchies, but we quickly see more complex behavior that opposed the reductionism of the modern, universal as metaphysics, distinguishing itself from the traditional principles first fundamentally in regard to this methodology- if it should so be called. It recognizes its self, a reflective function of its self, examination for the relative realization of the correlative practical idea of sense, whose structural forms of being and whose practical norms it is to investigate, it recognizes its self, reflective function for the relative realization of the correlative practical idea of a second sense, whose structural forms of being and whose practical norms it is to investigate, namely as one consciously and purposively directed towards this absolute idea.

From premises of that kind it is or might be concluded that real thought in fact took other forms and was governed by other laws than those that this current logic considered the sole determinations of intention. For example, on one reading of the following sentences.

1:Theory is a victim especially of this misunderstanding because, apart from refusing to shift from the metaphysics of subjectivity to a consideration of being as being, it adamantly insists on a fundamental drafting of being as egoistic, ie as an egoistic subject, into which it then introduces the imperative, absolute ethics of the other.

2: Everything that was discussible has been discussed; this is true is no longer

in order to express the occurrence of events, but we use events to express that events occurs over time.