An inquiry repeatedly reinitiated becomes a structure, becomes an identity of sorts. It opens to the new at the same time as consolidating and thereby limiting the possibilities for change. It seeks but also strives to contain the seeking, to put it within a programme with past and future horizons roughly marked out. In so far as the activity produces some immediate positive value there is a natural tendency to confuse the aim of the quest with the maintenance of such value, it embedding within an economy. Is seeing it in this way actually seeing something, or is it an expression of a resistance which seizes on any occasion to spin out a narrative? And if there is such resistance is it worthwhile trying to unpack it, to gain insight so that you can reclaim its motivations? To think about temporalisations as acts is already to temporalise. To regard the work as inquiry is already to personalise it, to accede to narrativisation. No doubt it is all very flawed, no doubt there are missed opportunities. There is no reason to trust the process, but equally there is no reason to mistrust it.