1. Interestingly even community and or communism have been seen as attempts at overcoming death . As also religion and philosophy in finding a meaning to the world. Yet meaning must, to be, must always be outside the signifier, outside what we ask meaning of. Why this is so lies in the process of signification where the sign stands for something other, the sign therefore in itself is arbitrary regarding what it signifies. The objection that a sign pictures the signified is still dependent on reading the sign, i.e. Interpretation of it. All symbols are reducible to simple two state systems where the arbitrariness is obvious, this very feature is to the principles underlying cybernetics and cybernetic communication systems. Signals which are clearly arbitrary in such systems are likewise interpreted, significantly by contextualization within and reference to, external frameworks. All signifiers are read, interpreted, and once interpreted completed, and so redundant. meaning is not then located in the signifier but in the interpreted framework which validates it. Meaning of the world , in the world is not possible , or understanding of anything which is in the world, as understanding lies outside , after. The signifier itself is never understood. Such was always the case but only now is it fully exposed as a reality that can be seen , and not just felt or understood. This is the emptiness of post modernity, its irony in its attempt to say something meaningful within this impossibility, and is double irony of exposing and playing with this impossibility. This could well explain the criticism of its lightness. Yet any idea of a nihilistic emptiness is also has problematics, Causality implies purpose, and though the structures of the texts in the world cannot decode themselves or be decoded within themselves they can present the opportunity for external frameworks to decode them. It should now become obvious that this decoding of an non encoded text, that is encoded by the same framework, an identical framework, never can take place here. Our frameworks here are pseudo structures, as they are only attempting an understanding of codes that are not their own, and from within the process of signification itself if it is to say its attempting some meaning. Society has become the exposed source of value? And so echoes itself as meaning. there is no longer a transcendental veil. The transcendental horizon always prior to the post modern epoch provided a framework which was hidden, value was and is always located in the contextualizing framework, in terms of meaning, signification etc. This value was chosen arbitrarily for the need of meaning or truth or power and if there is a real transcendental meaning, and any real meaning must transcend the signifier to obtain meaning, it is not for us in the world, we are in effect if we ask for meaning demanding an external transcendental framework, then we close this meaning, the very thing we wished for, from us. this causal chain of meaning it not fixed at what we call the transcendental but must continue in any causal framework. only with a non causality which asking meaning of makes no sense can the hierarchy be terminated. this poses two questions, can a non causal framework exist, and can it function, in particular if it is itself a cause, if it can be a cause, in effect a first cause. We could phrase the question along the lines of how a non meaningful system can create meaningful systems, and how they can evaluate meaning. Such a system might know about the rules of signification and be able to manipulate them, only perfect non causal systems would be incapable of doing this. only ,the limit closes off the signifier and so de-limits and allows a signified. Without boundaries , without closing off the text there can be no signified, meaning appears after the reading is completed, after the signification does meaning appear. All art , history, writing, all, communication is possible only by a framework which closes off the signifier. A frame work , within art that was once literal, became situational and finally social, economic in the post modern systems of governmental institutions which sponsor the arts and accredit the gallery system. Frameworks as such have always created the signified, or allowed the signified. For instance historically and anthropologically the contexts boundary within the religious act or performance closes off the sign and so posits an object, in itself, the concept, such as the host, or what has now become known as the work of art. It is only very recently that this has become obvious , and so within our culture the truth, value , worth, aesthetic is now seen as a product of the contextualizes, the institutions which support and create the frameworks, and not in the works or acts , or objects themselves , the creation of the works, or the creators of the works. This historical event causes all previous activities , works, etc. to become re evaluated. The empirical proof of this is in the re-evaluation, the re-structuring, and de-structuring of how this past is presented. In effect these products are one time pads, having no implicit meaning or worth, which is Apriori the attribute of the signifier. The signifier is a promise whose value depends on the institutions honoring this promise. This promise and its honoring is the reality of the present and past, however and importantly, it is not held or given up by the signifier , which is empty, but produced by the framework itself. if art or literature then is significant, it must be arbitrary in itself. It cannot be created, it becomes what it is, if it is significant in anyway, only by its contextualization, anything else is a myth. An illusion. The forces of contextualization are the socio political institutions of survival and power creating Value by what can only be described as a deceit which it is now openly displaying. Such is the confidence of the post modern institutions in their force, power, social and political, economic strength. if the truth or value of a proposition is decided by the framework which limits it, which nullifies the signifier, so the ascription of value to it, is wrong, as its value resides like its meaning outside of itself, it lies in the functioning framework which ascribes value and nullifies the signifier in its closure. The modern project of being and the meaning of being is now under review, and in that like any idea, being and its meaning no longer has its value located within itself but in the framework which determines it, closes it off, effectively destroys it, which accounts perhaps for the long history of being and the simultaneous successful description of being as its overcoming, as the end of philosophy, elsewhere the end of art, literature etc. So does it follow that individuals exist only after their demise, exist in their demise, in the act which removes their necessity, else they exist as unbounded and chaotic, as a lack of existence in a never ending attempt at being. Unlike Sisyphus however they neither know themselves, never know their task, or the reasons for their existence, but are faced with the impossibility of being as an illusion, or as an infinite task or in the last event their own destruction. They suffer both the illusion of being and its lack, so neither can have knowledge of a transcendental being or a nihilistic nothing. One could not imagine a more difficult scenario. The end of art like the end of many other things represents the achievement of the enlightenment where everyone has equality. Art depended on difference - as does any form of communication, and the idea that differences have value. The only value left within an enlightened culture separate from the individual is monetary, which is in itself worthless, as Its value is a matter of confidence. And within enlightened thought the confidence rests on the idea of equality, even from that of the human individual to the idea of logical equivalence. Conversely the only external value in religion, the alternative to the enlightenment programme, is ignorance. Within art like other activities the value was in the product, and the products generality of its value for its intricacies. As hierarchical differences. Once the hierarchy is removed - leveled - as the emancipation of society occurred then these values could no longer be supported. Even if they are there. As it no longer matters, on a level playing field the equality of judgment removes any structures which propose an art form. And this moment runs back through history removing all historical art as well as modern art. They become relative cultural objects lost of their significance, and especially lost by the intellectuals thinking, as it was the very intellectual idea of enlightenment and truth which removed certain hierarchies in favor of others. These within religion remain minimally, as at its, core, is the idea of a transcendental other, the hierarchy cannot be removed, only ignored. So within the churches amongst the many non-religious tourists there is the possibility of faith, however within the knowledge community , within philosophy all such ideas have been exposed in an attempt at truth, and it has revealed in itself the leveling and removal of all structure, all difference is arbitrary, and not significant. Alongside this the enlightenment project universalized culture, and further destructured the structures of culture by its technology. From the renaissance onwards there was a series of technological battles in which the older hierarchies progressively fell in the light of new technology. This is represented today by the idea of the pace of modernity, and the universalization of knowledge. But a universalization means the end of any value of having it. The leveling process depends also on the idea of ease of use, simplification as well as universalization. All endeavors, possibilities, achievements must be open to all, not because this is seen as some enlightened humanistic morality, even if it is, but its now impossible to frame any significant counter argument, proof etc. which has any force other than fashion or simple biological selfishness. There is nothing externally removed from the landscape in which we now live. Consequentially the Tait gallery contains no art, but a collection of objects open to any and equal interpretation. There is no objective test for differentiating the objects within the gallery from those outside. These demands for proof can be countered, avoided, hidden in religion as the divine mystery, but this forces religion into becoming blind fundamentalism. It has to become this, otherwise once reason is allowed authority the question is posed and cannot be answered. By a booming voice from the sky. Religion is Blind Fundamentalism, the totality of a universalized equality as an alternative has lost significance. There is in both no longer the possibility for creativity or thought, but the need, what we are left to do within either, is that of maintaining the status quo of their ideologies. This text represents the last words, the end of knowledge.