He’s gnomically talking – in his usual numbered way – about sentences needing “riders”, gestures and other sentences to interpret them, and my attention is wandering, when he says “It would almost be like settling how much a toss is to be worth by another toss.” Dead right. He might have said “It would be almost like calling a character witness for your character witness.” What I like is that “almost” – only escape route from the mindless regress of a sentence needing a sentence needing a … . The way I see it: you can have too much of a good thing, and that certainly includes interpretation. Satiety. Enough is as good as a feast. Economic law: the closer a need comes to being satisfied, the larger an increment of additional gratification required to produce the same satisfaction. In other words: You can’t get no satisfaction. And that is a huge relief. Because most of the time I can’t even get three increments of additional gratification myself. I mean: Play? Great. Play within the play? Nice one. Play within the play within the play? Far out. Play within… Enough – my eyeballs have disappeared. Same with ice-creams and sex. All things dissipate under repetition of themselves. And interpretation is certainly one of them. I’ll buy a rider creature – gesturing away on top of my sentences – and I’ll buy sentences interpreting all that moving of the creature’s tiny arms and legs, but that’s it. No further riders sitting on their sentences like so many witches on sticks screaming at me ….