Since these movements are habitual and unconscious, I could not remember and felt that it was impossible to remember - so that if I had dusted it and forgot - that is, had acted unconsciously, then it was the same as if I had not. If some conscious person had been watching, then the fact could be established. If, however, no one was looking, or looking on unconsciously, if the whole complex lives of many people go on unconsciously, then such lives are as if they had never been.” (Leo Tolstoys Diary, 1897, cited in Art As Technique by Victor Schklovsky, 1897)
In this naïve narrative manner, Tolstoy has described the complexity in the working of the unconscious. But a closer look can tell us that it is more about the ‘habitual’ task that the individual is not conscious of. After the initial failure to remember the individual also feel that it is impossible to remember. The expression that the failure to remember that he has done the act is tantamount to the fact that he has not done it. The last sentence is more emphatic about the necessity of recording the act done. Three questions can be taken from the quote in order to read a hypertext that the observation appears to relate to. Is the implication of the last sentence serves as a metaphor, which links it to post-modernist doubt in the traditional representation of reality? If habit is responsible for the facile recognition of the inability to be conscious of something, then under what circumstances is the habit formed? How is the production (dusting) of the individual to be accounted?
One of the central methodological issues to the theorists of cross-cultural studies is how to relate and conceptualize the existence of the everyday life that is always at odds with the archival representation of life. The heterogeneity of experiences is the unavoidable constituent of every day and the theorists of cross-cultural studies and comparative ethics must rely on heterology in order to