Celan

If this be the last poem I ever write, let it be, it is a poem for you.

"To Stand, in the shadow of a scar in the air."

Impossible to be, then
Not impossible to be:
A metaphor.

This, holding, opinion;
without belief,
for with no truth
its possibility rises.

Yet I cannot speak it.
Its possibility rises,
begins to fall as
I do begin to speak it.

Begins to fall as
it comes clear;
It is interpreted
It comes clear

It is not interpretable.
Untranslatable maybe,
but it is interpretable,
Maybe translatable:

It holds, yet never true
then always true
it never holds.
Strong.

It is translatable:
the word represents
in indirect light
a fabrication.

in indirect light
you still see
the healing wound
of a fabrication.

the word:
a fabrication
of a healing wound,
a fabrication.

The air so clear
hollow, void
till the fabrication
of a healing wound

is fabricated
on to the word.
In nothing rests
the nothing

we call something,
we CALL something.

This poem is not only about the standing that is in holding an opinion, but also in the standing of a term/expression for the concept/representation it is meant to signify/"stand" for. When we hold an opinion in an argument we do not have to believe in what we are claiming as our opinion. To be hypocritical is the nature of language: we do not have to believe that "belief" exists to seem as if we are believing in the stating of an "opinion" we don't even have to believe exists. We can say and not believe even that "to say" exists: saying must correspond to the reality that one is saying (something) in order for THIS "saying" to exist, or even for saying itself to exist it must be possible to say. But this correspondence relies on a belief in the existence of "reality", which subsequently relies on a belief in the existence of "correspondence", "belief" and "existence", all of which we only believe to exist, it is our opinion that they exist, in the face of a reality that (pseudo) qualifies/certifies that there are such things. What is hypocritical about language is the way in which, to express how it cannot be possible, how it breaks down at its very core, how all meaning and the terms that signify such meaning are fabrications of the representations of the meaning and the representation that representation represents, it cannot escape itself to show how all the representations used in language are fabrications from nothing fabricated for a reason we cannot know. Language breaks down as every term used in it loses its meaning in that each term was granted a meaning that was fabricated, the representation being a fabricated nothing.

To explain and relate: "to stand" for is not only all we can do for this concept, that is, hold it, for there can be no truth value placed upon it if the term "truth" only stands for a thought content whose representation stands for nothing, other than itself, and is stood for by the fabricated term "truth" which is meant to represent the representation that is "truth", while this latter representation stands for nothing, an empty pre-representation that is fabricated to form the useful representational concept that qualifies statements. We must create these representations and the term representations used to signify them in order to unite these representations to attain the status of a concept that can be expanded to encompass more and more attaining truth, within a system. But these representations float on air, have no ground for being other than a mirage "reality" that itself has no ground for being, and were falsely created from nothing being previously there (fabricated) to fictitiously ground the relation between language, or thought, and being in that what we say or think, what we represent, can represent the actually existing state of affairs. But here we are only classifying, by naming, representations in our languageless thought contents that were fabricated to represent states of affairs we only think exist, we only thought existed, states of affairs that cannot be singled out and classified even into languageless representations without losing all the connections that "representation" had to other things hence blurring the representation to indefinibility, without losing the state of affairs that representation had to interpret and solidify to create itself: in this level of interpretation the representation cannot represent the states of affairs without knowing WHAT, in essence, that thing is, which is impossible as all essence is merely the appearance of a more fundamental essence: between the object/state of affairs and the representation of it in the original fabrication of the representational thought content represented by the term, interpretation loses most of what is needed to define the representation in the way in which it would mimic the actual state of affairs that exists in reality: "reality" is a fabricated representation of a fabricated representation of the concept/state of affairs.
I can't express this in thought or language properly. A representation is a fabricated representation of the fabricated concept "representation".