stumbled across an idiom here that i had been tracking often in the more recent work of fred moten: "in and through."ќ not at all to suggest that moten is drawing from paul ricoeur in his frequent usage of the idiomatic expression. ricoeur uses the phrase frequently enough to be taken for a signature. my attention is drawn to it as it seems to indicate an invaginative gesture as can be taken from derrida's curiosity with maurice blanchot's novel *death certificate*, an example for derrida of when the writing itself apparently does exactly what it's talking about. i haven't read *death sentence* yet so i'm not sure what that looks like. if that ouroboros-like movement reminds one of the antiphonal and intersubjective aspect of discursive technicity, a worlding institution passing from god to man in the enlightenment, one dying and being born, perhaps one can guess how it bears on ricoeur's study of interpretive matrices. this is a book about interpreting interpretations. the sensibility that turns to freud and marx as common interpretive matrices for application in cultural critique brought me to ricoeur. this is recommended for those thinkers prone to suspicion in their critical thinking practice. "in and through"ќ suggests a blurring of boundaries. most of the book is a kind of wan summary of freud's thought, the last fourth of the book is where the action happens, the dialectic of freud with (or rather "in and through"ќ) philosophy (mostly phenomenology); here ricoeur is careful to clarify that his approach is not taken at all to assert a hackneyed analogy between hegel and freud. by i'm probably always going to remember the insinuation more strongly than anything else. oh well. ricoeur's writing in the last fourth of the book did more to impress upon me the extent to which i continue to have a barely serviceable and vague grasp of phenomenology. if we're discussing purely the co-production of the subject and object then it's easier to think husserl's work with hegel's. but often i tend to treat them as completely separate. ricoeur is causing me to reconsider that. maybe i've just been confused this whole time. boundaries blur, freud in hegel, hegel in freud: freud as archaeology, hegel as teleology: but never reduced to this! ricoeur is super committed to the dialectic in this regard, "in and through"ќ. there is something to this logocentric multidirectional power, the talking cure. but as i've not touched freud's actual texts yet, i can't really vouch for the accuracy of ricoeur's summary; by far, to me, the hardest slough of the book. although one of my favorite idea presented here from freud is that dreams are meaning and force. whether or not moten gets "in and through"ќ from ricoeur as a question to me feels a little fatuous since the idiomatic expression dates back to the christian bible.