any kind of creative activity and any kind of writing. The author analyses thinking as a subject´s listening to its own voice, with a split between ´I´ and ´me  close to Derrida´s notion of ´difference´ as a condition for the production of meaning.

(II) Analyzing - with reference to Benveniste, Austin and Searle - what speech is, the author deduces the so-called ´pragmatic subject´ (in contrast to the first section´s reflective). In its elementary speech act the pragmatic subject does constitute itself in rudimentary ways.

(III) In dealing with the product of reflective activity, the author finds the so-called textual inconsistence or logical aporias inherent in any logical or pseudo-logical system to be in line with Goedel´s incompleteness theorems, and he rejects the tendency to use deconstruction to understand these aporias, as is usual in Western metaphysics.

- The author´s philosophical position is closest to that of Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida, but on crucial issues he advances his own ideas on the relationship between speech and writing, also establishing a criticism of metaphysics that may be more radical than what has previously been developed.