It was of another order of truth quite beyond the possibility of skepticism; you knew it more surely than you knew your own existence, it was hyper-cogito. This superior form of certainty came with its own understanding, thus: In every realisation there is place of the free-play of alternatives against which anything positive must be posed, and this means that in ordinary understanding clarity of definition and the possibility of doubt are necessarily synonymous. Here free-play means relative absence, you withdraw so that the object can show itself as it is - this is your paradigm of truth - but that absence is a syncope, you simply can't know whether the ground was shifted while you were unaware, that the response truly fits the question. In this other kind of knowing the valences of inside and outside, or of presence and absence, are reversed. Where you were previously absent you are now more present, are absolutely present; if you identify it is with the creative intensity you previously consigned to the space of your absence, to the blank unknowing in the dialectical heart of experience. Hence every realisation is experienced from the inside, without any break in continuity. The gap in which the possibility of doubt could arise is fullness, and for the first time you encounter the truth unveiled. It changes things forever and yet it makes no sense, since what makes this truth so certain is precisely its contrast with 'ordinary' truth, it is dialectical in spite of itself. Isn't this just the necessary critique of enthusiasm? Does it apply to itself?