>>1716247. not to mention her language, in which "she" sets offin all directions leaving "him" unable to discern the coherence ofany meaning. Hers are contradictory words, somewhat mad from the standpoint of reason, inaudible for whoever listens to them with ready-made grids, with a fully elaborated code in hand. For in what she says, too, at least when she dares, woman is constantly touching herself. She steps ever so slightly aside from herself with a murmur, an exclamation, a whisper, a sen tence left unfinished . . . When she returns, it is to set offagain from elsewhere. From another point pleasure, or of pain. One would have to listen with another ear. as if hearing an "other meaning" always in the process of weaving itself,
of embracing itself with words, but also of getting rid of words in order not to become fixed, congealed in them. For if "she" says something, it is not, it is already no longer, identical with what she means. What she says is never identical with anything, moreover; rather, it is
contiguous. It touches (upon). And when it strays too far from that proximity, she breaks off and starts over at "zero": her body-sex.
