(Langue) is merely an index and as such stands in relation to the message (parole) as the dictionary to the poetic text, or potential meaning (held in reserve) to a concrete instantiation of it as such (i.e., as circulated in the act of production/expression). If it is in the nature of the indexical to point to itself, and in this pointing to mark the instance of the taking place of discourse (& its taking its place in discourse) and still to point beyond itself (by pointing or passing through itself), how could one point out the cause or the end of this circuitous circuit of meaning? If we agree that the object as pointed to, as point of reference (for various points of view), can vanish without a trace, then is reference superfluous? But a certain "pointing' remains in the straining of language toward what doesn't quite pass through the restraining (order); its insistence upon marking its own point(s) of arrival and departure, secreting a code that remains resistant to the message. So even if the objects themselves vanish, aren't there leftover words, temporary or transient transcendentals, and can't they do more than simply state that this is the place where language occurs? If Hegel grants poetry the mode of lingering over particulars , is it only a momentary reprieve (short shrift indeed) before they will inevitably be assimilated into the system of universals?[NOTE 50]