The Narcissist (?) - “No one can compete with my intellect; nor should they!”
We’re set up as loser and that is the gift of humility, or the curse of resentment!

THE BOX

The gift is given. The container is the prize that the receiver toys with. The item within is merely a circumstance of the realisation of limitation, boundaries and how we demarcate the being of self from itself - through discovery of horizons by way of expansion or contraction.

This primal behaviour can be seen in children and dogs! The means and items of revelation are of more importance to us than what it revealed. The revealed item only brings itself into serious attention as a means to explore said revelation and/or as new potential ‘openings’. We’re almost constantly distracted from the phenomenon of revelation by its ubiquitous application to all items and crafts of material nature.

Ignorance is the subject not the object - the ignorance can never be held, yet it‘s always the ‘holder’ - possessed in ‘emptiness’.

As Socrates once professed, death is like an unopened gift. Within may lie something glorious or maybe nothing at all - what is ‘uncovered’ (the ‘Apocalypse’) matters not as it is the Apocalypse we strain to understand, that drives us on, even though there is no ‘Apocalypse’ to hold.

Ignorance gives us the gift of adumbration!

Such phenomenon can be further observed in discourse where the ’Question’ is the perpetual frame (the ‘only’ ‘frame’) within/about all communication takes place. No one speaks ‘knowingly’ as we’re all speaking in ‘askance‘! The term ‘discourse’ reveals this ‘knowledge’ exists as a tightly strung Box, its crevices waxed smooth, its edges hidden plain sight. Really we do little other than “ken” which is quite other than the way we frame “knowing/knowledge.”
Just because we’ve become dumbed by the habituation of peek-a-boo doesn’t mean the phenomenon of peek-a-boo no longer faces us. We’ve simply hidden from ourselves the awe of revelation by attending to the ‘what’ as the ‘is’ - the item contained within as the principle of importance merely because it is more readily tangible, and a whole lot less ‘concerning,’ whilst ironically being of little more than a circumstance of revelation, not an item of revelation.
What leaves us dumbfounded and aghast requires a ‘grasping for’ - to make the shadows material simply because they don’t blind us, or maybe simply because we’re blind to ‘concepts’ that shape our being (directly at least!)?

Destruction For The Sake of Discovery!!

And what of the ’Narrative’? Is this no more than the accidental forging of a new enigmatic ‘Box’? The chaotic fecundity of human creation pulling at every dangling human frailty/thread in order to unravel ourselves in the belief that this self-annihilation will reveal the ‘Reveal’ - such perversion is us?

What do we ‘establish’? What of the cognitive reduction (false or not) of the etymology of “establish”? Is it a derivative of ‘stab’ or ‘tab’? Are we committing hari-kari or merely applying a label to the toe of our breathless corpse? (breathless in astonishment; petrified into inaction!). If we don’t run or fight we’re as good as dead, if we don’t fight or freeze we avoid fear in flight, and if we don’t flee or freeze we become tyrannical murderer.

Better to commit hari-kari than pass off another as our own vile dislikes! Only the dragon within is mask-less! In this sense one must commit the sword - words - to one’s own breast or risk destruction of the Box by committing an act of self-mutilation in scorching out the eyes of others and effectually shrouding one’s vision! If there is no Box to gaze upon one is forever sightless!

No need for Derrida or Foucault and their game of mystical analysis - they covet the Box, pull it to their breast guardedly. They are the sentinels of potential wishes, themselves as possessors whilst withering and claiming possession of ‘vitality’. What can we now claw from their skeletal ’grasp’? Or was it yet another ‘shadow’ of an idea rather than something of substantiality?
In the historicity of being their primary ’concern’ seemed to be focused upon a rungless ladder. Maybe such ideas can be cut shorter in order to fashion from endless ‘poles’ some tangental rungs upon which we may tread and gain perspective?