... so we'd again have to "render,"
                                                                 in going our separate ways.
                                                           And even in letting the matter drop...

                                                        ...but separation is in itself already,
                                                             in the word, in the letter, in the pair,
                                                                    the opening of the secret.
                                                                      Its name indicates this .

                                                                   so one would have to render
                                                                    this secret already legible,
                                                            like a remainder of a useless cipher.

                                                           ... you don't have to render anything.
                                                                          Just bet on the trap
                                                                   as others swear on a Bible.
                                                          There will have been something to bet.

                                                                    ... it gives to be rendered.
                                                                     To be put back on/put off.

                                                                            ... it's just gone.

                                                                   ... it's coming round again.

                                                                      ... it's just gone again.

J. Derrida
The Truth In Painting
 

                                                                            THE DIVISION


The division in the context of this work corresponds to Derrida's restitution (loss without the missing part). It exists as an assumption but is not faithfully conducted. It represents an attempt to return to a sensed pre(historic) state rather than a description of any biological facts. The division in this instance has served as a training prothesis in an exercise of losing control gradually.
By losing a part of itself that it produced in the first place, the seed is not in return cut short for it. It allows that part to evolve and to keep repeating its inborn principal in a way that is not necessarily the seed's original way. By giving up on its own completeness it secures its space in an emerging, further evolving entity.
By letting go its primary manners (predictability) or simply by not insisting on them, the seed allows the formation of the new laws, it allows change and unpredictability of growth.
Entities that developed as genetical and social products keep repeating the inborn/adopted principal but they have the right of choice if only they gain awareness for one. They metamorphose without altering that common 'seed'. All that surrounds the seed, covers it, points it out and rotates it... it appears and it disappears forming its appearances, its variations.

What I call the seed is the unaltering, constant component of a complex whole - the species.
The work is an unfinished metaphor for the pursuit of the seed of the species.