Let us imagine two concepts in oscillation, in the manner of two objects in orbit about one another, at once bound to and separated from one another by the gravitational forces, or polarities, of which their very matter is comprised. Seen from a distance, these gravitational forces are, naturally, invisible to the eye, albeit precisely in inverse proportion to the absolute intelligibility of those conceptual objects which the forces themselves govern. That is to say, the concepts in oscillation are as immanent to one another as they are immanently visible to an other that sees them. This visibility, nonetheless–at once visually material and immaterial–in no way renders discernible the very Zweifaltigkeit which determines, not only the internal dynamic of the conceptual poles (lest we lose sight of what is at play here, namely two notional spheres mutually embraced in their intricate orbits, each enveloped in a multifaceted surface, the innumerable apsects of which reflect, illuminate, submit to sight and reveal themselves to sight), but also the apparent amalgamation of these conceptual poles, that is, their visible indivisibility. Indeed, it is this apparent, this merely visible indivisibility alone which endows the two concepts with their signal and significatory potential, with their inestimable, if elusive intelligence, in the material (or materialist) sense of the term. Like two far-off stars that one makes out in the night sky precisely due to that single, luminous pulsation their constant oscillation transmits—an iterative pulse of distant light just detectable to the naked eye—ours is a commensurately bi-polar, ‘conceptual star’, born of and radicating from its very duality (its dialectic), albeit perceptible only by way of those invisible forces which make of the two conceptual poles (II, 4a) a single, indivisible source of light. Stated simply, my model is that of an essential visibility of expressly invisible essence. To the extent I have been able to observe, all ideas, all concepts per se, appear to share this fundamental, oscillational structure of visuality.
Now, as regards the invisible forces to which I refer—these forces invested with a kind of dual polarity at once positive and negative, that is, with equal parts attraction and repulsion, such that the two concepts in oscillation, one about the other, in function of these very forces (and discernible exclusively by way of the single, dynamic, luminous pulsation to result from this oscillation); these forces which bind the concepts together to the same degree that they separate each continually and dynamically from the other—of these invisible forces one must ask: what effects or pressures do they exert upon those oscillating concepts, which attract one another in their negation and negate one another in their mutual attraction? The answer is nothing less than a protracted and unpredictable conceptual conpenetration, a process that assumes the form of a gradual diminution of sense or meaning in each of the two concepts, accompanied by a simultaneous and commensurate augmentation of sense or meaning in no way identical to the sense or meaning lost. It is as though, with every orbital rotation of the concepts about one another, each concept should inadvertantly release one of its significational electrons, which in turn would proceed to adhere to the other concept, in this way altering irreversibly both the manifest (visible) and inherent composition of its meaning. What results from this incessant process is nothing short of a double conceptual metamorphosis that nonetheless always leaves behind in both concepts (hence, the dyamic relation in which they co-exist and through which each is constituted by the other: the character of that single luminous pulsation as it issues from their oscillatory imbrication) some mark, some trace—appreciable, if not, for that reason, expressable—not only of their earlier conceptual value, but of all the anterior conceptual values with which the oscillating concepts had hitherto been imbued. (II, 4b)
As I pause, from day to day, to contemplate these vast, featureless, and unfathomable savannahs, I begin to divine the expression, both visual and textual, of the process I have attempted to articulate here. A vast surface of word, bound and unbound, spreading across the earth, extending from where I stand out towards the horizon in both directions, without interruption, without a single blank space to mark a limit between the words that imply, in their bound-boundlessness, an oscillation of concepts in dialectical tension, one after the other after the one after the other until, of a sudden, one recognizes that this one and this other, these concepts in oscillation, alternating successively across the immense, scrolling parchment of the territory, are no longer quite at all what they had been, have already begun to transform themselves, however subtly, into new concepts in continual, mutual oscillation, such that, with only a most tenuous certainty can one now discern in that conceptual matter which they have become something of the meanings they had once contained, although in no way does such persistence of lost meaning—which is, by its very nature, also a persistence of essential visibility and, hence, of the force of vision itself—imply that one may fix with any certainty their present state of signification, given that, with each oscillation, with each repetition of the orbit of the concepts about one another, this present sense, or meaning, also continues to give way, moment by moment, to new and unforseeable conceptual iterations… (II, 5a)