with a multiplicity of languages in a situation of reciprocal translation: but what each language keeps as most proper, and . therefore as untranslatable, are precisely proper names which do not even belong to it as such, and which can thus appear to do quite simply without translation, being already in a domain of universal absolute reference. Which would come back to the claim that what is absolutely untranslatable is absolutely translatable, or else always already translated.
We cannot be satisfied with that, but, following a movement of thought that is beginning to be familiar to us, must seek out, not the end in this type of situation (we have seen in relation to Freud that death is at the end), but the "differantial" tension of the middle. Deconstruction is not an extremism, although it can look just like one when it is viewed from the vantage point of a mode of thought which always wants pure and clear concepts. For such a thinking, the propositions that we have just formulated are unacceptable, although they are the rigorous product of that same thinking, if we insist on its demands. The production of this type of proposition is thus not due to any perversity
marranes on both sides of the public frontier, but because they doubt everything, never go to confession or give up enlightenment, whatever the cost, ready to have themselves burned, almost, at the only moment they write under the monstrous law of an impossible face-to-face, tu . . . qui mecum es et priusquam tecum sim [ . . . ] sed neque me ipsum diiudico, Sic itaque audiar [ . . . ] ego uero quamuis prae tuo conspectu me despiciam et aestimem me terram et cine rem, tamen aliquid de te scio, quod de me nescio. Et certe uidemus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, nondum facie ad faciem [ . . . ] confitear ergo quid de me sciam, confitear et quid de