Now, so what we're interested in is the process of destabilization in which we ourselves can have a hand, in which we participate, and we want to know by what is that process which we call reconstruction, order, or command. To what is it loyal? To what does it swear in earth, both? Or to take up Terrence's excellent question last night? To what authority does it answer? What authority does it refuse? What call, to what call does it respond? But one of the best, one of the ones I like the most is the unconditional. The unconditional is what moves the deconstructed process in which we have a hand. Of course as Marib was saying when he quoted that line from Derrida, language is already started without it, right? It's not waiting for us to get into this process. And it will keep on shifting with or without creative poets and without Shakespeareans and without other geniuses. It's running. It runs in the impersonal third person. It runs. The conditional is what has been constructed under the conditions of language and history and socio-political structures and the systems… the earth, the systems I described. The conditional is what exists in space and time. What is actual? What is factual? What is real? What is historical? Beyond condition. Ah, there's the rug. What's that? It's what we're dreaming of, what we're praying for, what we desire. what we affirm, what we're loyal to, what we're commanded by, what we're responding to. to borrow a Haidirian formulation that Derrida has done, it's a complex of callings. What is calling to us? What is being called for? What are we asked to recall? I mean I have chapter and verse for this and I've documented it in some length but I am making salient and underlying a religious's tonality. Right? That's what some deconstructionist adhoor. They have wore vacuums and the prayers and tears have carried up. They do not want to hear this part. They say this is, the structure is just a descriptive enterprise. It is all about having a vocation, a call, a provocation, an e-vocation. And these are, I think, structures with our religious tonality, biblical tonality in particular, because this is what religion we have learned to put into quotation marks. But a biblical one, mostly Jewish, but since we are all spiritually Jews and being Christians, it's with us too, it's with the Christians too. It's also very much like, or at least it fits together sort of neatly when I was listening to Jeff last night invoking Tillich on the Protestant principle. It fits with the Protestant principle pretty nicely because it's saying no finite relative conditional, conditioned construction is ever adequate to the unconditional, the un-deconstructible. own deconstructable is a call that we can never adequately answer. It is a call to which we are always already responding. It is not our doing. It's what's being done to us and it's like waking up with a start in the middle of the night. What was that? Was that a dream? It is not a projection, it's not for a rock, it's the opposite for a rock. It's a projectile coming at me which puts me in the accusative thing, in the, on the receiving end, in the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the projectile, it's not in my head, it's a projectile headed in my head. Set, name, think about constructions and all the time now remember where does religion fit in all this because that's where I'm going. Think about constructions.

works

of art or artistic movements. them as exposed to it toward the future by the call of what they are being called to. And Derrida calls that promise. What is the promise that is getting itself promised in the middle voice of in a word like say democracy. What is giving itself promise by that word? And it's exposed on the other end to a primordial memory. Which I also will call the structure of mourning. It is destabilized by a promise which it has not fulfilled. By a memory that it can't be fulfilled. And it's exposed on the other end to a primordial memory. Which I also will call the structure of mourning. It is destabilized by a promise which it has cannot recall. between the hunger, that call and that recall, that promise and that memory. it is there though say spooked by the alejo they're like old Scrooge standing on his bed all tremble by the smooch Christmas to come and this is super the spirit of Christmas cast and the spirit who is woke up from the sound sleep. He says, this is my ontology, his ontology, not his ontology. Heidegger were capable of making a joker. Heidegger would have said, being is spooked by time. Being is destabilized for better or for worse by time. Being is made, put it in a more Augustinian way, and you would say, is made restless by time and we are the restless hearts in Kriyatam S. Kordushta. We are the restless hearts. The way I like to prove it is to start. I like to say the unconditional does not exist. It exists. It calls. in existence as well as called for. We are on the receiving end in the accusative, mil-gwaqsi, of a call which is visited upon us which we didn't ask for. to which we can respond or how did you put it, do our best manage not to notice it. Press it, forget it, ignore it. Just walk away. That's the… that call is… the anti-sejure is the call by which we are constituted as the beings that we are, by which we are suit or haunted or in more pious language inspired. we can fall into the sickness under death into this spare which is to it or our spirit to it or our diamond or the spook. We are called upon to fill up what is lacking in the body of which makes of us in the God-Poverty beings of hope in the promise of the beings of faith in something unforeseeable which is not a mere belief because belief has content and determination and a certain amount of fixed state whereas this kind of hope is a hope in something, holding and disturbing and destabilizing.