Text as text? What would such a ‘text’ be? Whence this purity of ‘text’? How does one establish the allegedly constitutive ‘immanence’ of such purity? A purity serving as ‘ground’, but ground for what, itself? As foundation of the granular fragmentation of a self-involution?
What is it that was written?
The non-site is simply the (non-)position from which critique is written, before the measurements and constructions of situation arise. The residue beyond systematic localisation.
If and when, awareness of systematic localisation, awareness of system as specific locale results; however domesticated, whether as epistemological, system of knowledge; ontological, system of being; or whatever else; if that leads to seemingly archaic articulations of ‘non-duality’ reminiscent of religious anachronism or anachronicity; are not such urban agglomerations encrusting the absolute, precisely the archaeological sediments (’said I meants’/mentations) and textual traces, of innumerable histories and chronologies, all declaring the timeless city of God, perhaps?
Whether or not sufficiency of solution is found to obtain or not, is simply contingent on the nature of reception and criteria of satisfaction. Surely, it’s for each ‘mouth’, if that’s your conception of others, to arrive at their own determinations of efficacy or efficiency?
There is no question of ‘superiority’, because such an evaluation would only entail yet another measurement and construction.
Who is to say what constitutes nature or the natural, a bunch of shifting historical determinations, interpretations, .docs and doxas? There is always the possibility of listening without subscribing to closures of exclusive belief.
There comes a point when it is no longer worthwhile to sanction the horrors of history, the dogmas and dramas of its positivist wargame, played out according to it’s terms, ‘selves’, and positions, those ‘ends’ no longer apply.
One plays differently, without limit, without end. There are other possibilities to attend.