I'm No Prophet. My Job Is Making

If I Open A Book And See That The Author Is Accusing An Adversary Of "infantile Leftism" I Shut It Again Right Away. That's Not My Way Of Doing Things; I Don't Belong To The World Of People Who Do Things That Way. I Insist On This Difference As Something Essential: A Whole Morality Is At Stake; The One That Concerns The Search For Truth And The Relation To The Other.

To Seek In The Great Accumulation Of The Already-said The Text That Resembles "in Advance" A Later Text, To Ransack History In Order To Rediscover The Play Of Anticipations Or Echoes, To Go Right Back To The First Seeds Or To Go Forward To The Last Traces, To Reveal In A Work Its Fidelity To Tradition Or Its Irreducible Uniqueness, To Raise Or Lower Its Stock Of Originality, To Say That The Port -royal Grammarians Invented Nothing, Or To Discover That Cuvier Had More Predecessors Than One Thought, These Are Harmless Enough Amusements For Historians Who Refuse To Grow Up.

A Law Which Excludes All Dialectic And All Reconciliation; Which Establishes, Consequently, Both The Flawless Unity Of Knowledge And The Uncompromising Division Of Tragic Existence; It Rules Over A World Without Twilight, Which Knows No Effusion, Nor The Attenuated Cares Of Lyricism; Everything Must Be Either Waking Or Dream, Truth Or Darkness, The Light Of Being Or The Nothingness Of Shadow.

The Court Is The Bureaucracy Of The Law. If You Bureaucratise Popular Justice Then You Give It The Form Of A Court.

If You Knew When You Began A Book What You Would Say At The End, Do You Think That You Would Have The Courage To Write It? What Is True For Writing And For A Love Relationship Is True Also For Life. The Game Is Worthwhile Insofar As We Don't Know What Will Be The End.