Is theory necessary? Hardly; the best one can hope for is a problematic structuralism bringing subtexts to the surface through formal analysis; the subtexts construe a politics and economy all there own.

Is theory true? Hardly; as soon was one leaves the formal conventionalism of mathematics, descriptive phenomenologies are the best one can hope for, and these always possess a literary or metaphoric quality.

Is theory originary? Hardly; the world and semiosis appear first and foremost; we are thrown into the midst of the symbolic and its ruptures, among which theory appears almost as a residue or afterthought.

Is theory final? Hardly; everything is always already dated and the best one can hope for is that one or another position behaves as an impediment to acceptable opinions.

Is theory elitist? Hardly; it is only that it becomes a pale reflection of the complexity of the world; the best that one can hope for is a slight transparency in relation to the given, a caress of things.

Is theory populist? Hardly; it is true that everyone has a theory, that theory prefigures the world, before world and semiosis; the best one can hope for is that this is forgotten, that critique is engendered and met.

Is theory unnecessary? Hardly; it is too easy to forget the interconnectedness of things, and the best one can hope for is a shadow or uncanny effect, pressuring sea-changes, atmospherics, within the world at large.

Is theory dry? Hardly; while there is dry theory, there is always shadow or uncanny affect, and the best one can hope for is a burning obsession, intensity, in each of us greeting the day with manuscript in hand.

Is theory lurid? Hardly; while there is lurid theory, the best one can hope for is the irruption of desire from within the text of the book, textlessness of the world, each of us yearning for a final truth.