All the splendid negations and negations of negations of the mystics are quite fatuous, whether they are meant deconstructively, that is, intended operationally to paralyse covert metaphysical assumptions, or phenomenologically, that is, metaphorically as indications pointing to the content of states of consciousness otherwise impossible to indicate, as if they were proofs of the moon. The problem is that they presume a scene where a solitary point of view is attempting to orient itself to what is. This picture is at fault not because the scene is begging for negation, but because of the presumption of solitude. Where there are words there is more than one agent: there is the uttering of the words, the forging of sound or meaning and there is the reception of the words or sounds. It is not a scene of instruction but a channel of communication or interpretation which precedes any and every intention that it bears, and the channel itself is not, but is itself meant and so subject to the same predicament. Discoveries are made, but they are necessarily unmotivated, because prior to any one who figures in them, whether in the place of truth or of the adventuring soul.