If the legacy or residue of past bad actions are carried along present fault lines, it follows that you’d want those faults to be as narrow as possible where it could someday be claimed that they no longer inhered.

Otherwise, as in the case of structuring contradictions, for example, what was once inherent or self-evident now adheres as predicate. It would show on the outside, regardless of whether there was an original concealment at right angles. There would be legibility of this upon crystallization of the understanding.

Then, among the faults of man that allow for sharing in the sense of faults made kosher, such a legacy would seem to be assimilable only with the aid of mediation or the intervention of a third element such as language.

Yet Kant’s objective of connected knowledge is interpreted by some to not require this, since the end parts are compatible, i.e. they fit and move together in some overarching whole or organon. The end terms are homogenous with the beginning but largely insubstantial in comparison.

For a reason, the attitude toward the end terms is not of veridicality or likeability premised on recognition. They are not even viewed as the most vital aspects. They are, as Proust phrased it, “dressed in the smooth silk of their blushing pink…bodices that dissolve in the first breath of wind.” Their uselessness now, as predicate, references the degree of tendentiousness then.

Given a future anterior state of a refinement of the beginning terms such that the end terms are homogenous and ‘ephemeral,’ this ephemerality looks like advancement only because it does not look as obviously like brute repression.

Which is to say the insistence of a sameness between beginning and end that gives the illusion of belonging and goodness of fit, such a memory as so directed that connects the whole must itself be supremely ephemeral itself, fragile, impressionable.

With respect to the contradiction, to say there is no inside could be taken to say that no fault is to be noted, and therefore no referential supports are necessary ‘for man, at least,’ to communicate. To say there were no outside signs of repression insofar as the repressed was deprived of anything it could show, you could also say this lack is symptomatic of the first condition of total loss, and that insofar as it is a lack, the popularized remark ‘What symptom?’ belongs to this absence of content but is sometimes badly translated to say that there is no symptom.

With respect to content, it is not the case that ‘the contradiction speaks now what the repressed left unsaid.’ Which is to say what? If the contradiction speaks only the words of the originary real, the spirit of the prevailing side is spoken again and cannot speak otherwise or go to its other which is the site of renewal.

Rather this rigidity of dress of the previous institution as so displayed reveals that, not only did the prevailing side leave the opponent nothing left to say, it left behind a few pennies worth of rigid words and formulations, dead words as tombstones, and this yielded up only after being ground down to rubble (the result of hard labor).