I've got a little tic in which I may waffle on a point and muddy the waters a bit. Usually it is some sort of qualification that follows a "though" or some such. The idea is to make some sort of assertion and then introduce a conflicting claim that weakens the assertion: "such and such is x, though sometimes it is y." This has become quite intentional, and I suppose could be described as a minor routine ritual carried out in the course of writing.
Not only is reality infinitely complex and building up good models can be devilishly hard, but then as soon as you do so the reality is already drifting away and the model is beginning its disintegration. On a large enough scale, capturing reality is forever a moving target, forever ambiguous.
This is a belief and practice that is bound up with the view that ideology is an act of construction, as opposed to the practice of bringing to light faithfully something that already exists, and then of course making a proprietary claim over that faithful representation. There is some truth to the latter, but in a time that emphasizes disintegration, the construction aspect comes to the forefront. To put it another way, in great times of upheaval, there is a concerted collective effort to come to terms with death.
Sure, one could deliberately adhere to an air of certainty to project confidence. A perfectly reasonable approach, though what happens when the dynamic moving parts put enough pressure on the static symbol, and then the whole thing cracks open? This is compounded with the dilemma that the thing professed to be unbreakable in the first place.
