Ipocrizia membrului fantomă

More than writing, this following paper configures a reading. And, like any reading – and here is probably the stake of the exercise –, it awakens ghosts whose latency – as latency – does not make them less active. This is all the more so since Derrida, graciously committing his Restitutions, plays explicitly with the ghosts of “his” text. The quotation marks try to point out the fact that the auctorial possession is never absolutely finished, defined, concluded. Who writes? Who is speaking? Where is it written from? And, above all, is there a “prime actant” of this act, never without actual rest, which is the writing? Or, rather, the game involved in it is a permanent wandering (errance) between hypocritical figures (in the Greek sense of ὑπόκρισις)? So here are the ghosts of this paper.