A humble suspension of certainty seems necessary ... almost always: in order that a conversation can take place; in order to think. Otherwise there is no motion, no mobility in argument, in reasoning, in dialectics. There has to be a space: an empty position as a kind of parameterization so that one can entertain possibilities serially. Not just one hand and then the other, but this that and the other: or, or, or. Something might fit. And judgment might be made. But the entrance of judgment depends on a parade of alternatives, not on an a priori certainty. Judgment is a choice, an imposition, a selection.

And conversation must wander and let alternatives be weighed. Desire flows across topics and examples, diversions and counter-arguments. A question creates the space for the flow, but a statement invites argument or stagnation. Better to be imprecise. To invite interpretation and questioning so that there is no clear place to arrive.

... but what about when there is a call for political assertion? That is a kind of judgment: this is wrong (most likely). Why equivocate? Is it effective only to ask, “What have you done?” or “Why?” perhaps ...