Any thing grasped in its presence is unexplainable.
Therefore, any explanation should take into account that its object is also unexplainable, as long as it is present.
For eluding the contradiction of a discourse which contains explained and unexplained elements, the explainable aspects are conceived as available for both the past and the future of the explained thing, so that the presence of the thing becomes forgotten.
The predictive and normative tone of the explanatory discourse mystifies the fact that the proper time of explanation is the past. The past offers the knowledge of a thing, but it also induces the false representation that the thing has a nature as clear as that of its explanation. The future of the prediction or of the norm adds to the clearness the strength necessary to support the fade appearance of any explanation.
Therefore, the unexplainable presence of the thing is unclear and weak. The interest of one who wants to think of the thing in its presence should be to use those words that are not clear and strong.