As opposed to that other ‘principle of principles’.
If there are principles, they structure every proposition that speaks about them, including this one.
If the principles are related disjunctively, then their duality will divide every proposition about them, including this one.
Always-already, explicitly only eventually, and not only in one way.
We would discover the principles and their relation neither by using nor by asserting axioms, but through a felicitous interpretation of fixed points. Interpretation? A reflection, such one that finally learns to participate in the form of self-reference – finally the step back and the step in, semantic ascent and descent, bracketing and emplacement, coordinated in the right way.
Useful procedures of philosophy: to insert and remove the changes of vocabulary that defer this self-application of the principles. Inserting gives relevance by relation to the languages of existence, while removing risks a language apparently without referents, but actually clarifies, removes pseudoproblems, and above all, voids attempts to interpret the principles, as if they were mere content, from a lower formal-dialectical level. Such work of reinscription is valuable, but as periodized phenomenology, the form of a participation which, to be helped, also needs to be deconstructed, the only alternative being completion in the imaginary. The theoretical form of this goodness, the need of dialectic, is to continue to track the sameness of the difference of the principles as it mutates, incommensurably, through situations. This metalogical analysis is an intrinsically ‘creative’, temporal, chance-driven endeavor, since there is – demonstrably – no single mathematical standpoint from which the differences are equated simultaneously. Example: Where Leibniz fails to track the sameness of the difference sometime in the late 1680s, and appeals to a metalanguage to save us: supposing that the infinite serves as a place where the rupture of incommensuarability is repaired. But from the analogy between deduction and commensurability (from the self-application of deduction) follows just the reverse of the work he wants done, as will be shown in 1930 when the rupture repressed as content is forced to reappear at the level of theory itself.
“Without failure, no ethics.” What may I not hope? To escape the consequences of diagonalization. In the refusal of the arithmetization of syntax we find the form of philosophy’s emptiest desires.