There is a difference in the intimate relation of the maker to the made that
of intention and desire, but embedded in the very relation of the thing to
that which it comes to represent e.g. its characteristics relative to those
that circumscribes the makers practice and to which both the maker and
consumer jointly subscribe in the form of presumptions, assumptions, and
conventions. Subsequently, the content of neither is self-determined and what
sense can be made of it is always unstable in that this and still more come to
bear on any and all interpretations, which rely on rhetoric or figurative
(metaphorical) language and are therefore always ambiguous assemblages or
constructs in which alternatives are also already present do to what Derrida
identifies as Defference (a contraction between difference and deferral) the
point where dissimilar terms come to be joined one to the other in a
non-disclusionary/ non-inclusionary manner. This surplus of explanations be it
binary, contradictory, or intrinsically bound together by other logics or
systems of raises the question of how might this condition is taken as a
given, used, resisted, or re-deployed to give representation to the economy of
such indetermination in face of the need or desire to act in accordance with
it - given these material conditions of consciousness and desire may not be
willed away the problematic of this internalization of what might be thought
to be a normative condition is the point from which analysis and self-
reflection arises - for the question is not one of rightness but of what is
sensical - that which permits us to proceed.
