What E grasped – little more than speculation based on claims made by E himself, after what can only be considered a non encounter in those vague whereabouts that are yet to be adumbrated formally – was the emerging fact that E himself was formalising something which E himself had apprehended within Es recent acquisition of the questioning mode: a means of formulating questions. This was a matter of which E had previously been ignorant, and moreover, E had been particularly ignorant of the formal framing of that singular question, the shifty one concerning Es undetermined beginning, that is to say that E himself was somewhat ignorant of any one such claim, Es own included, to an existence – or of having indeed begun.
If E is to be believed, for but a moment, then we may speculate that whomsoever should take stock of the impaling moment of interrogation, and thus, whomsoever should deign to formulate such a question pertaining to the beginning, in so doing, that particular Lambert may be said to take leave of ingress. It seems fair to say that henceforth, from that singular instant onward, an exit will most eagerly be sought, an exit toward which the motion of any Lambert would transport him, or her. The question, then, as described, may be considered thus: a form of transport toward a source of motion, one that would push the wanderer, i.e. E or any other Lambert, on toward a formal exit.
Conclusion: Neither limb nor Lambert was seen, not for the duration of the time that the question remained suspended, or, that is, not for the brief duration of the invidious moment of impaling, Es foot there anchored, though unmarked, beneath the interrogative; and from this claim there can be little doubt that Es body began its formal motion toward what may be considered to be exit from ingress. This seems, based on sheer speculation, to be informally conclusive. Yet this too E did not know. At no previous endpoint had E encountered the matter or the manner by which the matter comes to be moulded. So it proves nothing, and proved less still E himself not knowing. Nonetheless, and for want of proof, E gave himself over entirely to the task of seeking the exit.
How did this come about? It is too early to enquire, but not to late to ask the question. For it is a reserved inquiry about a fact. A fact, the response to which can come as no less speculative than its speculation would prove itself formal. For whom does the question concerning the beginning transform its unseen trumpet into a formal instrument of inquiry? The answer, even though inconclusive, as stated above, is of an interrogative matter (spoken by whom and to whom?) that remains only to be reintroduced, if only by echo, in the form of a refrain leading toward the exit.
The questions would seem to declaim themselves thus: primo – when did E begin to wonder Es head around the beginning of what had previously begun?; secundo – when, albeit belatedly, did E take stock of the question of Es own beginning, also of Es having begun in a moment somewhere anterior to the present moment of realisation that Es beginning preceded the place where E himself took stock of the relic that E had, notwithstanding Es ignorance of the written shrine, formally begun?; and tertio – what is the place of motion impaled by the question – have I begun?
What seems to be conclusive is this: the moment E began to understand that ingress and the question were of one unformulated yet emerging matter – the location of which was of no more bearing on the signification of where, than was the direction of his flat feet at the undesignated hour – from that instant onward, E began to take stock of the matter, of the arbitrary fact, that on his passage through ingress to exit, that is to say via the question, E himself had immediately sought to exit Es uncertain whereabouts.
This is a transcript of Es statement:
You do not commence, E said. Never. Well, in an uncertain way you do, formally that is, yet, of that which constitutes what you may come to call the beginning, never do you take full stock. At the instant you begin to realize, eye cast ‘round, peeping closer, sensing as you do the haphazard blur of motion, like vinaigrette in a whorl of purposeless commotion, looking in, without the requisite tools to formally identify neither the liquid nor the ambient odour, nor any predetermined origin of these unspectacular things, of a sudden, in the very hemidemisemiquaver of that instant, sensing underfoot the motion of the road perambulating beneath your barnacles, what indeed you realize when finally you engage your senses, or rather, when the signal they have been dispatching discontinuously for an enduring moment, and without formal interruption either, at intervals more regular than doubtless you have cared to realize, there and therein, within this briefest of instances, when you finally latch onto the aforesaid signal, at that moment an opening presents itself, one that appears opportune to apprehend the question: this is ingress to exit. (At some point, anterior, now long forgone, at an instant when a nodule brushed ignorantly beneath your gliding feet, somewhere in the course of what was a segment of time, call it elsewhere and makeshift, if you prefer, in a segment without windows through which your eyes could gaze in upon and see the tread, there the road began moving, and you, thrust onto a patch, not rougher than any other, struck out, somehow, as it were, enacting one blue barnacle after another, foot over hand, knee leading shoulder, heel booting toe, and toes rising – a motion repeated repeatedly – you transported thus in an informal motion toward ingress.) From the instant of impaled realization, one begins to look forward, in earnest, and sidelong, at length, so as to identify an exit (from ingress).
This claim, while it is understood poorly, seems to be somewhat conclusive. Ingress is a keyhole, through which the whorl is unseen; and all is always of the purest speculation. No ingress. No exit. This seems to be more conclusive. Encircling the question in the keyhole – this is exiting ingress. Reclusive motion around a soundless trumpet – this is brass. But this too is poorly understood, Lambert. One proves motion by exhaustion of reason. Exit Ingress.
Lambert, c’est celui qui revient d’entre les mots.
Ignotum per ignotius.
written.work.Copyright© 2011-2012. All rights reserved