The Idea of the Golem is a case in point. Defined as "tellurian myth", the Golem evokes classical studies; connected to initiation rite, it goes anthropological. Tellurian myth displays "eruption of creative force", and thus should be properly called protean, as it takes various forms and escapes definitions. Focus from idea to practice, yet the problem persists. Is this practice mysticism, magic, or even shamanism?

The later explorers of "Jewish shamanism", however, do not recognize the Golem as their subject matter. Idel, in his book, starts with the term magic, turns to mystic-magic, and arrives at the newly coined ergetic, defining it as "a type of knowledge attained from action". In other words, they did what they did and learned from what they did, which is a way to recognize that the Golem, like Kabbalah, is everything that is called by that name.

The « Golem » must be located within the field of practices, but to do so we have to suspend our own activity-we must not hunt down the creature, but allow ourselves to be involved in its creation. "Thev read what ther read" means they read "the reading" and found it unreadable.

While deconstruction is incessant reading of what may or not be read, creation of the Golem is deconstruction of deconstruction. The proper frame for that enterprise is speculative realism, since to read the unreadable and to think the unthinkable is to be consistent with reality.

To approach the Golem one must re-read it, that is, enter the hermeneutical circle, however, the gist of staying within the circle is not expanding the horizon infinitely, but reading beyond the horizon.