If sense-certainty cannot talk about particulars but must immediately enter into a discourse of universals, what do we make of the particulars of writing, the materiality of the inscriptions, the signifiers? I would argue that it does make a difference how and where something is marked, whether in pencil or in ink or with a stick, whether on white paper or yellow paper or on sand. Blake and his interest in "minute particulars" provides an antithesis to the immediate universality of inscriptions -- "Singular & Particular Detail is the Foundation of the Sublime" -- in that all knowledge, especially the artistic production of knowledge, comes from attention to and, crucially, through "minute particulars" as ends and as means in themselves that cannot be obliterated in the process of signification.[NOTE 48] This argument has to take into account whether the means of expression (the exact "execution" of the Idea) merely affect the ends of expression, or whether they truly effect these ends. In other words, are the particulars in themselves ineradicable or do they disappear once they have carried out their function of producing the aftereffects of meaning? The point is whether or not how an idea is expressed it is still important, or if the idea once expressed no longer needs the means of its expression, which means will have been dissolved, digested, assimilated.