AFTERWORD Jacques Derrida and Jeffrey Kipnis ation which took place in a hospital where Jacques Derrida was recuperating fm and | kindly thank Ben Gianni for his assistance in translation,] JK Jacques, why “choral works” project. JD I's true that, even now, at the end ofthe pro. rom a con n was in French, begin with your reflections on your perticipation in th ture. | continue to cling to the division of labor, ac 5@, |, have been resistant lo exchanging places. | oon, 1nd myself the non-architect — a philosopher, a man of ject, | try not to assume which was, ‘and my collaboration. We, oF in any nos! problematic as inued, unaware or even while denying it, 0 consider Peter the erchitect course, of concepts, pethaps, but nevertheless a non-architect. This failure to “change places" repres denial on both our parts. Just today | reread Valéry's Eypalinos, and itis interesting to note there what Valéry s the frustrated architect which he represents, For example, consider this passage, which states thet if Socrates had become an atc tect, he would have become anti-Socratic, the 'S ‘Phaedrus: And what is it you want to depict against this background of rnothingne fos: The anti Socrates. P I can imagine more than one. There is mare than one opposite of Socrates, $ This one will be... the builder.” Which isto say thal the builder is one ofthe anti-Socrates, and it follows that the ant-architect isthe prime figure the Socratic question. To be passage, Valéty suggests that in Socrates the architect Is dead, or rather, has boon aggassinated. To be an architect twas a possibilty abort a resistance and a mute ocrales and of nel shel! Will depth MlodigiousMll ties, Socraies, you would 0 or assassinated. Let's read you assassinated by meditating overmuc sed Our most famious builders...” Which suggests that in every philosopher there is an ant-architect, 2s well as a stil architect aborted. | bring this up to underscore that, tothe extent | was engaged in this collaboration with Peter, per- haps | felt myself to be too much the philosopher to assume any true architectural responsibilty. | was thetefore resistant to architec the same time hoping, no doubt, to be more of an architect than Peter — in other words, to inspire Peter to architectural nsible for our work in Common. At the same time, and this is true for both Peter and me, there was her than those of our habitual her pasf have far sur born archite ture, while Jorks; {0 be at the origin of and res 2 refusal or denial of our mutual responsibilty to engage each other on t 2 resistance tothe oth identities, For alintents and purposes but At the sre re, pari ay tradictory, but | do not belielilb.:t they arfllknpatiblellke was, ville since war, a ruse, a strategy of resistance and denial. Tris did not prevent our dealings from being hones the confidence of our friendship lance and strategizing. So, for example, even al the point in our work where | was called upon to skeich, to act as an architect, | ried to lay upon Peter the responabbilty, to say, “You have to tell me what to do, wha ete lo take the responstly for signing both of cur names. Itis this sense of cunning jence. | say this neiter critically nor with regret —| believe, to the contrary, tha at ultimately gets Isaig \rifil opose ulin a pro pros sy own. These wo tendencies seem con mutual fiendship ol his collaboration, a eter, “Sings you are the architect, itis you, ‘and compatible, but nelther oid vent the r material and so forth,” In other words, | asked P and syste something useful. This is why | cited the fictitious Socratic dialogue of Paul Valery, Everything Peter and | did and did no ture of chore, and therefore, one might ask to what extent our conversations reflect a relationship 0, for example, when | said to Peter, “i's up to you to tell ic denial that | most retain from the exp reflects together has been put under the sign to Plato's Timaeus, specifically the scene dealing with chora in that dialogue. wat to do,” 1 was acting a bit ike Plato's Socrates, who says in the Timaeus, “Ive got nothing to say, m listening to you. | am th nora — you inscribe, you are the Demiurge." However, that is but one irony. There are ironic, more embar pects oft 1ora’: that is, the milieu in which all of these strategies My own character as Sacrato-charal is inscribed in something which willbe published: people wil see that we are just pa tial characters in inscriptions. We all are in a more comprehensive chera. Thus chera is, atthe same time, a part, a part in the thealt adcressee of everything, | am 166| | | | | } | | | AFTERWORD a and a whole. Chora is the theme of which we have been speaking: chova layed; chora is the character which | play with Peter. But chora is also the space in which al ofthese take place. and fer of metorymy in all of this. | also think that the relationship which | sketched for myself with whence appears the unstable c Peter as well as of identitying myself with him, in order to say, in the end, that I did rojection and iden. ing myself fron 1 doing for me. Peter also participated inthis relationship of denial, stant di ven mar rogard to Peter was a way of sep: nothing, that Peter does the doing, and does tcation. Quite often, he would say to me, "You are sides. But there is another level of resistence which m architect, nat me." There was c and resistance trem both .ddressed, which is perhas ted trom our work together has not yet been realized: other resistances are at important than those we have cis fen as we speak, the design which res work, What makes architectural deconstruction more affirmative, consequential and effective then deconstruction in discourse is that it encounters and must atiempi to overcome the most effective resistances — cultural, paitcal, social, economic, financial, material anch architectural. If, for example, this project — and itis very small, is it not — were to be postponed indefinitely, then that would demon. imagine. Even if tney do not sto i project, they will certainly mount ever ould ev jects in the same spirit. Thus at nt for me, for as I reread the transcripts of our conversations, | found t! technically possible?” or “is this sm a philosopher by rchitecture as @ te that those resista more dificult obstacles to larger, more ambitious Ultimate tests of deconstruction, This is especially signifi ion | who posed the questions cf resistance to Peter, albeit naively: “But do you think that this is Don't worry about it” To the extent that | stronger than nd for similar reasons the law, are the economically possible?" or even “is this safe?" Peter always responded profession, architecture i oysign to me, guen hough the, workin which,| er engaged. deconstruction — has cipal target: architect cof fowecu efelfniosopi, } Hwvell as Le tecture LeP® fe ‘As with Valéry’s Socrates, there is within me @ repressed ards.Bd a forbil tat ohtect, Aro does lank to write, The architectural writing which interests me is not compatible wth the dominant phlosophica/architectural tradition. Al work thus can be seen as if have become a philo which hed not been possibie.|am not saying that | can now ite such a cursive form which is analogous to the architecture of which | dream, an architecture which has been both repressed and forbidden. Ho tat within it architecture and re tak in any of the classical, professional or olin! fses of th if however, it seems fo me that what | wrth Aap to re-do a a tension, the spacings and overlaps of the two designs, a choral work, precisely. It might ere are very classical passages about the relationship of archi les If were to encounter Eupalines, | would ask rim some 17'S To explan somewhat more clearly about words are like bees forthe mind the arts, Ir to ne means to write as | wish ny in order to liberate an architectural witing but that | perceive myself as wing in a dis her and a philosophic deconstruct architectu ibe this architecture which | know of, but do not yet know? At least | can i together under the sign of "choral work” and w can | begin to des ‘agree. That is why | was particularly happy that Peter and | were able to w he accepted my desire for the musical instrumeqt, the lyre, 'ptegge entipra 4 *fmpetenser! *pither archie Hor musician. In spite of this, | am neliner an architect nor a musician clliation, but something else again wat are quit thought about in tem acitional — in the Eupatinos, re to music which are quite t thing else. Phaedrus: He must be the most unhappy of those buildings of which he says that 'they sing.’ P | can see they sting me. P And what does th ‘compare them, to distinguish them. | want to hear the song cf the columns and to visualize in the clear sky the monument of a melody cene strongly suggests that af | sald, on the one hand the aliance between architecture and music can be conceived in very tractional terms as is the case here. On the other hand, it can be conceived ferent way, @ way that prefigures deconsttuction. JK In this passage from Nietzsche,® he takes up in one and the same breath resistance to architecture and the relationship between architecture and music, though in a very different way irom Valéry. it seems though architecture and music are both environments we are “within,” echoing Valéry, unlike architecture, music is a 30 saying that in our music, modexn music, we derive @ autiful, Consider, for example: "Sov What would you ask h of his haunts you. $ The: 1y? $ They set rry mind towards consilri at phrast They ate as insistent as lecture maybe separated from the other arts, Thus. that he says th false environment, one into which we escape and hide. JD But he is al 167Jacques Derrida and Jeftrey Kipnis re no longer Gre whether as architect byrinthine architecture, Thus we Moder usic. Our music, music which uly expresses us, has already ltt behind the labyrinth, because men abandon theméele labyrinthine musi 10 one can see them, there within the music. So, clearly, this passage suggests th from music. I there is a fear a fear of being exposed by it, whereas they don't fear the se ted to the fact that architect because they hav itecture, iis, according to Nietzsche, re € it suggests that the privilege that modernity accords to ns @ sort af clure does. From my point of view, this is ni lance to arc makes visible, who conceals. | fing ext by Netzs dent confidence — one trusts music because it cennot betray you as S as much as architect Having said this, what bothers me is that N ential ait of architecture. lam not sure that architecture is simply a visual art. Nor do | believe that ual and non-visual arts problematic. Thus, however interest music bet elzsche equates ar makes visibilty the principal and es nd one's way ou al, 1 ae tho Yair ole ert, Ths the rag corn awk. nh atic tyro D) to aller ne home of chara 2d | might be in Nietz exposes us and forces us to see, The remarkable thing oriented. By following Ariadne's thread, one c Yovoten a sistas cartes coil You otten ask ‘Is but also the credibility of our project from tf project w id not hap Id sell them something simple, then pass them nat ‘concessions, t ying that we Something unsellable and unacceptable through the black market. Nov, | beliove the labyrinth to be cuite acceptable, quite ealeabio, So! was thinking of an apparently simple stucture which could be assimilated by our culture but which nevertheless contained the di feullis and disturbances which we sought. | have fited with labyrinths for a long time — | cennot say that | am simply agains ‘abyrintns; there are several ways to conceive of the labyrinth There are those of which I just spoke, whose trajectory is tolalizable; ther 986 onesel, n Which no exit is assured, and whase Ith which is much more enigmatic, in which one cannot help but hitecture can nether be gontraled nor eae ‘si itn which ‘-_" eon | was afraid the former might, in our there is the laby conversations, dominate thle JK You id that osiment in the project. Can you elaborate? WD | fee! pass through the hands of ar fo unsure autor inspite of evel, wnat | ict: nec thle cod tects and be manipulated by conte same way as | sign my writen works This ls not ay that am téealization, stil escapes me, It will aways tors and investors, etc. So | will not be able to sigh this work in the ble simply to sign my own wring, but the modes of appropriation, iated — not only by Peter, but by all of the technicians fons at tion and ex-appropriation differ. Thus the invastment is less, i is me fers who take charge of the project. JK But throughout the transcripts, one reac thorship which you put forward. At various times, you requested thatthe project use video, audi, that it enable the user insisted that the result be simple, even possibly empty. All imately abandoned. You did not participate, but in the specitics very complex 1S you slowly abandoning the architectural ai Wve a trace of his or her presence, Very early into the work, you vith of these and mex would have insinuated you into the project as architect, you put fon you abandoned authorship. | arn not saying, of course, that ard tentatively, and ul It might be said in the end t ofthe final project, are you there? JD | must first say that the ‘and contradictory one. There is never simple authoral inves with text. In fact, the investment of an author is from the begin ning Paradoxical, because itinvoWves abandoning, detaching oneself from the thing, Thus the idea of authoralinvesiment is an approx. imation whose very form is aoprcpriation. in signing something, in signing @ work, | appropriate it for myself, lett go, and | reap the ‘benefits ofthis non-eppropriation all atthe same lime. | appropriate this non-appropriation, and so forth This extremely discon you refer to as an “authorial investment” 168AFTERWORD losic apnles io every signature. Thus one can detect tin the work, even inthis architectural osigning, by simple ditferences in modal ies, To the extent hat this project is both a collaborative werk and an architectural work, the paradoxical investment of the signsture land more fortuitous. | ike "Yortultous author is for me rendered even out 140 ft, for G0 on to the next thing, and there it is. | am comfortable withthe fiction of s in my writen texts, For instance, in Signature, Ev ¥ signature being visible n the work, in the building sel Context, imitate my ¥ overdetermined play with my signature as not my signature, and s0 on, The question of the any other places in my work. It is tue that in choral work the fiction is in space and on the page. Moreover, the fiction of my signature in this project is furt simply a grephie sig -ompounced by the c' g in an unfamiliar domain, and so on, But in any case, my s a collaboration, my oper ure on this project of my signature in general. Perhaps the situation, the tentativeness of my suggestions, as well as Peter’ faliure to respond to them, is complex beyond mere retrospection. The complexities exist at the level of my relationship to Peter, of course, but also of Philosophy’ relationship to architecture, Finally, iis important to mention that my colaboration with Peter was merked by an essential nd inhabit ct ton or Patis, it was only for @ few hours, our ages and s0 on. We lead overtaxe discontinuity which detves tom our cn continents; we do many oer things: when we were abo to ge og ally and dlsconnuly in other words, we did not work together in our work together This ts thal our respective investments afe primary elsewhere. Ts represenis the element of fortutousness, cela, but the ing necessens — it releg the isto is aby, bul not vial, that no one would think of we 66 ef workinghi,} Ver, un eff soy eo Bitions wore in place. JK All the things ye hu were fimiflwith. Are you familiar with this project? JD ah partecpating, the genealogical principle of he pro spective reputations in our fio ther in New York, T (ur cooperation reflects this — intercontine chance is somet nyalnuy respect ty ther, re having us work t tave signed before this pi ighit is @ peculiar Inhethert fatblay oft olature or Pod Yes, tho familiarity | believe myself to have understood, thrc ject. lam not sure that | would be able to reproduce the actual design or justify all of the decisions made by Peter. | understand the general thread of the design, but | am somewhat immune to the particulars, JK Considering your early thoughts on simplicity, st too elaborate? UD | dort think so. | find it handsome, ator. | do find it beautiful | say that in full foness that the standards of beauty were not what guided us. Neverthe: and found it very strong, very beautiful. JK There is, as you know, much interest to ss, | have looked al it from the viewpoint of an amateur, fay inthe implications for architectural design cf All, what Seemip.oroblematic to me is the idea [fr teat Hina, tor philosophy, forthe 28 difereseal hus deconstruction can nei- y. the unity of style, Me ants? One style is a cod homogen ther yielo nor yield to one style. Rather, deconstruction deconstruct th here were a sat of stv, Im not sure that the urity, the dominance of a siyie, would be something that would interest ts me, but | am suspicious ofthat which might refer to style as a unity. Allow me, then, to address these two concepts al, the value of style represents an aesthetic/ideological elaboration of the idiom. In other words, one uses the 2; thus style is idiom within a defined domain, aesthetics. It's also often used metaphorically in style is a law which allows us to recognize the s authors; that isactory defintion for the con: style and unity. In gener name "style" to regulate recurring Ttereture and the arts — the traits of a pen, a siylus, the cher general condition of an author; itis @ way of signing that is not, however, a signature. Like idiom or dialect, style harness: itis the proper mark which inscribes itself regulary, and thus has the value of a signature. Nevertheless, style is reducible nelher to idiom nar to signature, The idea of style belongs to an ideological/phlosophical space, where the idiom of signature would be repre Ned by a way of writing, a mode of writing, an elegance — for with sivle, there is always elegance. We may only speak of sive if iom and signature are already considered qualities of beauty — and iis this connotation which | find bothersome. Sile is alweys a program, whether individual or collective. It is always something recognizable, and thus as a concept ambiguously r6 Signatures. By the same token, we must not simply abandon the research into style, | believe that style might also Orawings. As idiomatic motis a 168Jacques Derrida and Jeffrey Kipnis bea mod ly, | am tempted to liber the moti of siyle from all the connotations which ng isel. | that a idiom, and in speaking ofthe ef | have just evoked, while elaborating that aspect of style in insistent force, a brand that Id like to discuss idiom and signature a bit further. | do not believe that pure idiom as such d renunciation of disciplined thought on idiom i of value. No, the question is one of the effec 7m, one is speaking, ater all, of style. T sts, thaugh this is not to never be found in the intent of the signer — he or she who maneuvers the idiom — but only perceived by another, For example, f| am considered to writs with a then itis not my iain idiom, a certain syle, iom for me, because the idiomatic aspect ofthat which tion, cannot be apparent fo me, but only to the regard of a ‘able considerations, of dissociating that which is idiomatic from that which is proper: a dissociation ‘ompli I which only appears work by w fe amid all ofthe diver sitios of @ given trajectory, by def. ther, Thus the necessity arises of aissoc i these two seemingly insep. ich | have argued can, in pri ‘ically, that which he cannot reappropriate from hin: ciple, be ac ned. Thus the idiomatic expression of an architect is, paraco Vet is not simply a technique or mastery by which a subject identical to himself might imoose y er marginal architecture, there is an effort to use the name “deconstruction” to authorize one or Correspondingly, as you might expect, there is an Community to marginalize tecture, regardless ofits vajectory, und is style. JK Within today's explora another sty architectu {by the more tradition exploratory arc the name “deconstru jon.” How do you interpret what might be called the iplines? JD First of al, as | have ine. Secondly | would say, quite frankly economy of the name of “deconstruction” loday in architecture, and for thet matter, in other i tht as soon asthe wor! “deconstrecton yi atisk of Depamiog a quar a coree usc, eyes As 220m ae comet he docorail=becondilsouce ct hc, ve fillsiegn imines or cece tee sncrotontinerchtecHG tutions andlor Mileaign rall@bemoviable horde leon but itis merely a necessary tcc ina strategic war As soon as auhony masqucraes os latinas & obe deconstructed. JK The name "Detideis of course a metonymy for deconstucton ands egtinetor par occ Nha ss lectin tis project? JD | am perfectly aware of ts and would be noting more hen amused by R were fot ener nen no auch larger eld where what plays he roo tga, inthis case the name Dero wre ot so repressed and rece that ti that itis necessarily demani ized, more attacked than ever. I my participation in this project was merely as a pelly, legitimizing force would escepe immediately. But deconstruction, and my panlcipation in it, is an action with significance in @ larger field, andi one that ot ny alts ot sco mar rs =i of legkignation, For the mor nstruction dele inthe fleld of architecture, | iimizes canons rather thal imizes mex We nq [ret what allllissctructive erchitecture isn’t. Its nether a ye, Por an authorized en: What Aleonst uct tection ellen @ concept, rules, techniques, methods, it would be of no interest: it would be over, so to were a definition of such eak. There is an uneasiness d them, One could, possibly, negatively analyze the laws of this uneasinass, that is, the different ich the various architects reject and/or put into question. Thus, for exemple, the deconstructive intorests of those of Tschumi, and one could at best analyze their negative rules. h tain texts; precisely due to 1m and singulanty which | discussed above, one cannot e tem of architectural rules from deconstruction. Here's what must be done beyond the negative motifs of architectural deconstruction which have 60 far been explored, The deconstruction o architecture in the broader sense wil yield an architecture which is noo 8 closes, identiable and spect field. Consequently, architecture must be contrented as being rrore then building design or bull ings. It must be explored as having to do with relationships, including urbanism, of course, but maving beyond to what one calls “cul- {wre in general: the architecture ofthe cinema, the architecture of about deconstruction that has diferent ef al the same time rernains obscure on different architects. This uneasiness is common to @ certain number of architer aspects of archite Eisenman are very diferent ve tried to explain this in cer 5 of cate pnique, method or sys leralure or philosophy, and so forth. And no one will be able to pre There are no rules for architectural invention. JK It | understand you scribe rules or methods for this passage from building to the « const rectly, you are saying thal there is no such thing as @ dk clive abject; deconstruction in architecture is only a quality of a 170AFTERWORD be identiy as deconstuct no allow coincidence to operate positives ary question, From my point of view, the re. JK system Use ofthe coincidental analo 8. UD Yes, Ihis a neck od in “chorel work,” one aspect of Pe ly, n the design pro: Fy t0 the tradition of architectural design, For example, consider th ind Peter’ project for Canna se that his processes and ours have their closest affinity. Could you ld | say about it? Interesting coincidences are which had t fe to happen, s intentional or the They are thus the law sucha thing, something wh gies between Tschum/s La Vilette proj 9)0, which were indulg generate even more coin cidences. From my point of view, i is in thats tion of coinciclence? JD As you know, itis an enormous subject what incidences are th cidences; they reveal the law. Certain typ happen all without ever erasing themselves truct the comprehensivene = coincidences within the stru 5 ofthe law. An “ever one cannot antic alter the fact, seems to have been abs exceeding the law; they decor julely fortuitous, yet, wh Sary, to have been pro- taken seriously: tof the coincidence 9, begin to cross and reconfigure. They are the ipate and which ap mmmed, For simi is a place where t 's just say thatthe e feasons, thal which appears as innumerable threads o! the economic effect of an event. By economic, | mean that all of a sudden, at one they articulate. ave happened, inthe sense of which the greatest numbers of possibilities point or with one w Inthe beeing caused to happen, but at the same time it could not that | have ferested in ways been Nitsche’s dleceurses ont sboct — hi via thal apse! ard nec 4, not incompatible, When an event takes aloe he stock ne enn fife seleife exon, sens fol revit ob f wes unpredictable. A major aspect of my werk has been to inquie €ai ep i slonlecessiyl sk réthat asthe general discourse on necessity, at is philosophy. There are many examples of such events which occurred in the 5 and my wotk together. Consier is hued allo ho necessities, the obec, f Pe melonyms, the structures, as one of the most obvious, ‘choral. In this one the psychological, personal, material and linguistic aspects of the project. But itis — coincidentally — much move. Hence fis unique event which will leave @ trace independent ofthe intentional forces which led to its emergence. My thematic suggestion — chora—- led Play — choral work, But is evident that tne thing is as independent in ts existence as a piece of coral one might id along and my own. Itis simply that — a pioce of coral or @ piece of music — indepen to Peter the seashore It is independent of Pet Gent of is writer. This and the other expos of coincidence which, perrneate this pgolet cramaligaly evidence what | have long Teferred to as the struct Allan indesnd Pf “bingieyp Pace is rh Siese cut off from is origin nce, Sin 8 not prein.s.Mriclly spéack.A it, trace, is not an “it Thus ists while elucing all thought of exis: tone can only See the footprint of where the trace has been, ofits operation. In this sense, trace It is evident most in the uneasy dependence of necessity on accident. With every trace, there is the you just gave, and the uncerny curiosties that ten necessity of accident. JK Bo you distinguish between the operation of citer wurtounds of work, For example, y ou and Peter, with how similar it sounded tothe intervie speaking? JD They are se within a unity, exe 1 and I were both struck, after having read the transcripts of the first meeting of the Timaeus. Are uncenny a nalogous, but diferent. T Unpredictable similarities cifer 3 vihich is “une tent from the type of coincidence of which you are nny" is ay within citference, and in that sense the two types of coincidence are the same. But the “uncanniness” of an analogy must be cor sidered within the atmosphere of Pos oF Baudelaire rather than within the context of philosophical thought, where analogy is that which Controls identiias. Thus there are two systems whose differentiation probably deservas to be disturbed, or, as | would say, solicited fe reassuring, JK In Pe fort to take contro o There are analogies which are “uncanny” and analogies wi incidence, oF a least to intend its production. JD You must te ing that cannot be mastered. In the effort to take control, there the strength of the writing, so to speak. There is thus no control, only struggle. JK Traditionally, coinci ‘© contol of something, One drives coincidence as one drives some- ‘a negotiation between the strengths, between the strength of the fence is cont 171Jacques Derrida and Jeffrey Kipnis Pejoralive connotation, similar to accident. Is it necessary 0 tate the status of coinci possible to rehal ly become lawl a certain rapport to coincick nce remains a ‘and receptive to coincidence as. ns himself to fal. Bu in order for this to give way Io an event such as that of which we have been attuned to coincid come — with a certain passivity, he allows for the pley of coincidences ing, tis necessary tha nce. Not ved, received, treated in a certain way, The quastion is, in which way? the relationship to coincidence be more than a passive empiricism. Itis necessary that of any rela- lionship can produce a work, an incidence must be respected, thot nce must na dispos spect demands a idence. I boliove, by the way, that great architec uires a great deal of work, a great deel of activity. t supposes @ very particular relationship between an the significant aspects of the The necessary respect urrence of coincidences, essential, passive receplivity, which allons for t fe time the enormous research, invest gation and work to br i them 10 fruition. This reletionship is the chance for architecture as it also is for writing, JK It is odd, consider. ing the necessity of coincidence for work, thal it has such litle respect. JD It is very dificult truly to respect coincidence. This fs tue reasons that are neither obvious nor trivial, JK In recent times you have been exposed to architecture in @ way and to an extent for which idence in my w at we have 's ong of the two arenas, the other being the law, in you were not prepared. JD That's a coincidence for me. Architecture is 2 been aiscussing, JK Now you have noted, here and elsewhere which the stakes are highost for the test of your work. JD Yes, there where my work has, shall we gay, found itself taken by surprise and very necessarily developed: geet i spsons, ree opiate andlan. To stes in the strong sense architectu are a bit different in philosophy, literature 2:ng and #Mlo.9. But thi veains of 4 iin which | am a complete Stranger from the point of view of competgm@u tre thosell@aéich the diMxepment offi istru ofl scrst necessary, This ne sity is both surprising and insistent for me. | am surprised and perplexed that they ai yond my r Conviction of their importance for my work, JK Were you aware of the extremities in design that have occurred in architecture before ich," considering my ihe Greeks know how to ex Asiatic or European, in contrast othe Helle allthese me; while in Paestum, passes by means of which .2 appeared in their own th theirs! If we desired and dar Band love Mal Bis dnow sillier people of Gr ess the Min '=. — Likd conception of themselves! How labyrinthine do our souls appear to us in comparison w an architec ‘our model would have to be the labyrinth! The fect is betrayer et ture corresponding to the nature of our soul (we are too by our music, the art vi expression! (For in music men let themselves go, in the that when they ealed! in music no one is capable of seeing them.) Daybreak, aphorism 169, book Il; Friedrich Nietzsche, .R, \. Holingdale, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 3, For more on the seriousness ofthe joke, cf. Derrida's Proverbs “He that would pun Published as the introduction to John P Leavey’s GLASsary, University of Nebraska Press, 1986. 4. Derrida here alludes to a scene from Valery’s Eupaiinos, other aspects of which he discussed above. In that scene, Socrates chooses to become a philosopher rat than an arch ‘esult of his problematic encounter with a piece of shell — or coral. The scene was brieily mentioned in the fist ng, September, 1985. Here then, as an example in the act. Derrida playiully exter the unpredictable yet ne -ssary prolifretion icidences associated with chor coral of which he is speaking,