"That whereof we cannot speak, thereof must we remain silent"

I think what I love most about Wittgenstein's proposition is its anthropocentric commitment to the imperfectibility of human knowledge, affirming human limits in order to defend what lies within them. In this way, what remains unexpressed has not necessarily been overlooked. And where all propositions are in a tight focus, allowing little beyond, their assertions must be measured against the specifications of the lens itself, and nothing more.

At the same time, even within our own limits, we touch for a moment the ineffable: we say very precisely, the words: "that whereof we cannot speak", and thereby something is contained, even if it is not something that can be reached. Something is touched upon, even if it cannot be elaborated. An impediment is made *real*, projecting a self-conscious absence, an absence with focus, where previously there was only narrowness, stumbling, prejudice, an absence deduced from without.

Wittgenstein *makes good* the dependency upon partial knowledge; and he offers, in one, compact statement, a possible argument for necessity, as a result of which as readers, if one accepts that specific limits here apply, the hinterland of each argument takes on the same focus as the argument, and everything re-proposes itself by way of tranpose, by way of what is missed. And thereby a specific silence is given speech, a specific absence made present, a specific lack given agenda, and perhaps, such are the tribulations of expression, that which comes to the fore is greater and more compelling than that beneath which it had been concealed.