Absurdity and the Question of Eternal Values

There is a proposition that presents itself as an attempt at resolution. It addresses a specific problem—that of suicide—and seeks to confront it without recourse to what, perhaps only temporarily, is lacking or altered. This proposition does not claim to restore what is absent but examines what can be done in its absence.

It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, just as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, perhaps only temporarily, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe.

This approach does not deny the possible existence of eternal values but acknowledges their absence or distortion within a given context. It does not seek to replace them but to act despite their absence. The problem of suicide is treated as a question demanding an immediate response, one that cannot wait for the return of what might render it superfluous. The proposed resolution does not rely on an afterlife or an absolute but on what remains when these are set aside.

Another Kind of Fidelity

Another proposition emerges, not as a resolution but as a preservation. It does not seek to solve a problem but to keep intact what is given. Here, spelling and punctuation remain unaltered, as though any change might risk betraying the essential.

Variations in hyphenation have been standardized, but all other spelling and punctuation remain unchanged.

This literal fidelity is not merely a matter of form. It suggests that what is written carries its own necessity within itself, and that even the slightest modification could alter its meaning. Punctuation and spelling are not incidental details but constitutive elements of what is transmitted. By refusing to adapt them, this proposition asserts that the text, as it stands, already contains all that is necessary.

What Lies Between the Two

These two propositions do not exclude one another. One attempts to resolve a problem without recourse to what is absent; the other preserves what is given without seeking to modify it. One acts in absence; the other maintains in presence.

They do not contradict but occupy different registers. The first asks what can be done when familiar reference points fail. The second affirms that what is already there needs no transformation to be understood. One is a response to a situation; the other, an attitude toward what is handed down.

Neither claims to hold an ultimate truth. One offers a way of acting despite absence; the other, a way of receiving what is given. Between them, there is no choice to be made but a space where these propositions may coexist without negating one another. Absence and presence, resolution and preservation, are not opposites but different ways of standing before what is.