It would help me, since to me too I must attribute a beginning, if I could relate it to that of my abode. Did I wait somewhere for this place to be ready to receive me? Or did it wait for me to come and people it? By far the better of these hypotheses, from the point of view of usefulness, is the former, and I shall often have occasion to fall back on it. But both are distasteful. I shall say therefore that our beginnings coincide, that this place was made for me, and I for it, at the same instant.
i. The Unnamable is a mouthpiece of, or aperture for, expression of The Law in its description of the symbolic world and thus is perpetually throwing up the stuff of discourse's deep armature onto which subject narratives attach and realise themselves, as so many crustaceans. (Of course, The Law is not The Law in this instance as the Unnamable is constituted discursively... The Law in this case is therefore The Discourse (and it is not necessarily generated, as is The Law, by an act of primary repression)).
ii. The Unnamable exists in a condition with no access to The Law (or The Discourse) and is therefore provoked into endless revision by the recursive structure of its domain. It seeks always to respond to, and unpick, the preceding statement by accessing the conditioning factors of whatever has just been uttered. But there is never anything more than the preceding statement. Without the structuring effect of an unmodifiable limit to the flow of statements, the process of revision goes on and on.
iii. As in the narrative of the Unnamable itself, I now see a further possibility... The Unnamable is immanent to the Law (The Discourse). The Unnamable is consistent with the internal mechanism of The Law (The Discourse) and therefore does not have perspective. It is indistinguishable. It has access to neither the register of separation nor that of distance. It has no specific discourse but may only narrate all possible discourses. It is a mechanical noise. The innocent involvement of the Unnamable with The Discourse suggests that any potential subject discourse, if it is to appear in the world, may access the objective limit of itself only by the mechanism of a primary repression (by which all other potential discourses are excluded from its domain).
No I won't do it, what won't I do, as if that depended on me, I won't seek my home any more, I don't know what I'll do, it would be occupied already, there would be someone there already, someone far gone, he wouldn't want me, I can understand him, I'd disturb him, what am I going to say now
