When one attempts a reconceptualisation what is at stake? The renaming of a preexisting matter? Surely that is not what is hoped for. Some how there is supposed to be a new grouping or a new apophansis. What we tentatively postulate here is a notion to replace the doubtful, doleful face of scepticism. Where something was sceptical now it is phantastic. Changing the signifier is never simply that. The perception of -if it were limited to them- just those associations of scepticism alone under a different name would create a different dynamic within the arising. The phantastic takes under its wing the epistemological abyss. How many faces does this abyss have? How can an abyss have faces? A face is a horizon of infinite meaning; the manifestation of the phantastic is no less. The abysmal phantasy is that into which we fall every time we sleep. The phantasy gives us the knowledge that we do not know what happens when we sleep. That we do not know what happens when your friend rounds the bend ahead of you. It only doubts insofar as doubt lets us know the infinite possibility around us in the limits of the disclosure of being available. My commentary on Kant -no matter how technically incorrect it might be- is reminiscent to me here. What is important is the experience of the phantastic, not the working out of its conceptuality, this would be its present-at-handness and lead us down a path of dust.