I begin with nothing: only an unspecified commitment, a pure question mark, a certain mental attitude. I want to tell the truth in a true way, before I even have any truths to tell; to grasp the nature of ultimate reality while reality itself presents no point of entry to its innermost circle; to forget all that I have learned and begin this time without a beginning, empty-handed and empty-headed.I remember exactly what was on my mind when I wrote those words. My obsession at that time was with the idea of a 'dialectic of illusion' which is not part (as in Kant's Transcendental Dialectic) but the whole of metaphysics. Everything. You could say, a metaphysical version of Wittgenstein's 'philosophy as therapy', but modified almost beyond recognition. The 'bare question mark' was just a symptom of that illusion. That was the intention, to give the illusion every chance to manifest itself.
The dialectic is pure impulse to movement; and it is omnivorous. Everything serves as raw material, including its own self. When pure movement feeds upon pure movement, something may indeed arise out of nothing: the dialectic becomes conscious of itself and begins to construct its net.
The dialectic of illusion was my radical response to the methodological problem of starting point. I thought I'd solved that problem once and for all. If every metaphysical argument is, ultimately, a form of reductio ad absurdum then you can truly say that your metaphysical system, rests on no foundations. Like a great city floating in the sky. That was my vision.
And what now? If the illusion (the 'ego illusion' so called) isn't an illusion but the perception of reality ('my unique subjective world') then the piece transposes into a different key. Yet the melody remains the same. Or does it?