*

Totally.

You know.
Those people for whom nothing matters but themselves.
Who talk and talk and talk to anyone who will listen.
About them and their ideas.
But as soon as anyone interjects,
they look at their watch,
without trying to hide the gesture,
shift body weight from one foot to another.
Interupt mid-sentence
to announce quite abruptly
that they have to go.

Those people.

For whom there is no giveandtake.
The ones who drain energy from everyone else.
Whose very existence is intent on proving
the notion of totalization.
Theirs is an overwhelming desire,
not just to have a system, a theory or a philosophy
that explains everything,
but to actually be the very thing
that holds everything else up.
Like a religious system that places God at the centre.
The need to b e the centre.
Source and origin of everything
as the cause of all things.

When in the presence of someone like this,
it is actually ideal to have Shakespeare in one's pocket.
To be able to pull him out at will.
After they have gone,
to sit him on the table
and listen to him wax eloquently
about the human condition.
Its perplexing facets.

With fresh coffee,
mini Will on the table
and his overwhelmingly poetic insights
about totalizing personalities.
Shakespeare would undoubtedly admit
that totalization is impossible.
That those people who strive for it
suffer from its lack.
That there will never be any philosophy or system
that absolutely explains everything.
And certainly nothing
will ever encompass all matters of the human heart.
Will would easily concede
that there just might be too much
to account for.

Or as Jacques Derrida would prefer to say,
there could be too much 'play' in the system.
Such that its elements can never be fixed
or measured.
This holds true for all people-as-systems.
Or at least for those people who talk too much,
since theirs is an overwhelming need
to view the world as a fixed system.

Imagine.

Some small café facing the lake.
Table by the window.
Afternoon light streaming in.
And two lone figures sipping cappucino.
Engrossed in quiet debate.
Will Shakespeare and Jacques Derrida
totally talking together.
Jacques might stir the foam in his cup
while staring through the window.
Deep blue eyes completely fixed on the sky.
Suggesting that systems can be compared to a kindergarten class.
That the teacher's vain attempt to take attendance
while the children are all wildly running around the room
is a good analogy for the impossibility of totalization.
Adding that when a system lacks a centre,
play becomes infinite.

Meanwhile.
Will might quietly sip for a moment,
thinking how he should have ordered the deep dish apple pie
with vanilla ice cream on the side.
He would probably try to penetrate JD's distant gaze
by proclaiming,
"the play's the thing".
JD would nod,
sip,
replace his cup in its saucer with a clink
and then continue,
having noticed Will's playful stare.
He would slowly exhale the word, 'Y e s'.
Surmising that when a system has a centre,
play is limited or eliminated.

Both would agree.
All systems fall somewhere along that continuum
between those two extremes,
that this is why systems do not work,
and also why
totalizing personalities don't function well in a team.

At this point,
Will would become distracted by some pretty girl
walking down the street outside.
This would be just enough of an excuse
to work the Greek word 'telos' into the conversation.
Telos meaning goal, task, completion, end, purpose.
He would ask if it is not the goal of any thing
or any activity to seek totalization?
Teleology being the study of ends, goals or purposes.
As in all of his plays, he would try to explain
aspects of humanity to itself with mere words.
But in the end, remaining content to watch
the girl fade into the crowd.

Will would suggest that any teleological explanation
is like a plant that grows roots
to absorb water and minerals from the earth.
He would admit to writing plays
for the sake of trying to explain human kind to itself,
just as any explanation, theory, or argument
that accounts for things by emphasizing the attainment of its goals
is teleological.
Teleological Shakespeare.
In philosophy, certain phenomena can be explained
in terms of their goals or purposes.
JD would reply that this is totally teleological word play.

But there can be no teleological explanations
for totalizing personalities.
Both would agree to this.
That no psychology and no science could ever do it.
That if face-to-face with such a person,
Will would be content to quietly observe
their ticksandtacks,
storing ideosyncratic gestures in his mind's eye
for future writerly reference.
Whereas JD would probably examine
the moment of such a personality
as an interval in becoming-space-time.

The shadows would have stretched across the room
and JD would posssibly change the topic,
mentioning his notion of archi-writing.
Describing it as an interval that separates the present
from what it is not
in order for the present to be itself.
He would also note that this interval constitutes the present
even as it divides it and everything that is thought
in our metaphysical language, every being, substance or subject.
He would name this interval with the word 'spacing',
describing it as the becoming-space of time
or the becoming-time of space.
Temporization.
And he would use the word archi-writing
or archi-trace
to describe the interval that makes up the present
as an originary and irreducible synthesis of marks,
of traces,
that reproduce a transcendental language
which proves itself to be inadequate;
simultaneously, spacing and temporization.
Or another way to describe the chain
of non synonymous substitutions,
according to the necessity of the context,
would be his neologism differance.

Will would totally get it.
He would enjoy how and why JD makes up words
to fit new notions.
But he would add,
"Just say it man!
For the play of it
and for the love of God,
just s a y it."

Both men would smile
to acknowledge the impossibility of (their) totalizing personalities.
They would look around the room for the waitress,
calling out for a second double cappucino with extra foam.
JD's words would linger in the corners of the room,
words that describe that interval
between each totalizing personality
and the rest of the world.

That interval between Will and JD.

Echoed in their final solution,
if justice serves,
would be the words,
'walk away'
from totalizing personalities.
Will repeating under his breath,
"My poverty but not my will consents."

.
.
.
Just
walk
away.