Guided by a series of metonymic substitutions and puns on meaning, mine, my own; "my own" reading is a quotational remnant that marks my own absence in the presence of the text of Hegel (and in the "present" text of Hegel), but this "I" is as language already universal and thus I cannot locate myself in this or any text absolutely. "My own" writing conspicuously rejects consumption -- as if in the moment of climax the signifiers would be immolated in a blaze of signification only to be replaced by the signified; subsumed and superseded in and by the signified which recapitulates the development of the Concept out of itself, i.e., the progress of "conception," "consummation," and "death" in-itself and for-itself; such that these processes will now occur (recur) on the higher level of Spirit -- the birth, copulation, death and rebirth of the Concept. "My own" writing resists being consumed by "Hegel" by producing a reading of "my own" body as a text, by producing my own "text" as signifier of the absence of my "body" as living material in the text; i.e., neither immaterial to the text nor to the argument as such. I propose to write and re-produce a writing in which I think in order to both reduce and re-introduce myself to print. To think of my own body as a text -- as a body of thought, thought's body, embodied thought, thought thought of as body, a body of work (corpus); exported, reported and re-imported in thought, installed or "ensouled" in thought -- that would block the digestive, dialectical ("dialectophagy,"[NOTE 35] in Derrida's words) process as if to stave off the effects of its medicinal poisons (the gift of its infection) by failing to read its prescriptions as directions for "proper" use. Thus this writing is an act in the process of resisting obliteration, of preserving those memory traces and indigestible bits which in themselves refuse to be simply sublated, consumed, excreted and forgotten. This writing attempts, at least "attempts," to preserve those traces that are not preserved and to negate those that are negated in the Hegelian system. The notion of the leftover which cannot be absorbed and is thus "ignored" by Hegel is the deconstructionist account which Zizek rejects, arguing that Hegel's infinite judgment foresees even "this" little bit: "Herein lies the "last secret" of dialectical speculation: not in the dialectical mediation-sublimation of all contingent, empirical reality, not in the deduction of all reality from the mediating movement of absolute negativity, but in the fact that this very negativity, to attain its "being-for-self," must embody itself again in some miserable, radically contingent corporeal leftover."[NOTE 36] What remains is this "leftover" that haunts the hand (la main) that has forgotten to eat it and writes it instead. You cannot counterpunch absolute negativity by saying "take that!" You can, however, take "this."