From Prof. Pasler I learned that as students interrogate themselves, taking a critical stance toward the sources of their work as musicians, they should be encouraged to become aware of the possibility that theoretical discourses current in other arts, humanities and science disciplines could have important implications for their work. As part of CSEP, I began to realize that the fields of critical theory and cultural studies, including the emerging areas of feminist musicology, ethnic studies, 'queer theory' and other post-colonial and post-modern discourses, were becoming central to an understanding, not only of what the students were doing, but of my own activity as composer, improvisor, and my emerging role as scholar (George E. Lewis in Zorn, p.96).
 A Ph.D. dissertation on deconstruction in music. Five times around or beside music. Five 'chapters' on the philosophy of Jacques Derrida and on different parts of the musical body. Five. Or better, four plus one. This one. This is the one. Connected to and separate from the other four. Separate because it starts from a different institution, a different discourse, a different plateau. In the other four parts of the site I relate to, react to, join some musicological works; this one is in some way connected with the pedagogical institution, with texts on education. What keeps me busy here is the possible relationships between deconstruction, music and pedagogy. What can deconstruction mean for music education? How can deconstruction be connected with music education? How is deconstruction always already connected with, that is, present within music education? Can we rethink music education through deconstruction? How can or how does it influence music teachers, students, and the teaching material? These questions will occupy me here. They will lead me/us. They will take me/us on a journey of which the destination is unknown. Perhaps we will never even reach a destination. For example, when we consider the destination of this journey as the clear and unambiguous answers to the questions posed. In this sense, it is already quite different from conventional ideas on education whose criteria of success are determined mostly by calculable needs or outcomes and calculated use (cf. Blake et al., p.147-8). Does this mean, then, that we will not learn anything from this journey? Or, is this already a first concealed opening to a different kind of learning, a different kind of education in which deconstruction is present(ed)? I will return to this. Later. At another place.
 Why a section on deconstruction and music education? Why turn to a discourse, why come to an assemblage that is quite far removed from the musicological? Why this 'hors d'oeuvre', this side dish or this ring? The answer is, first of all, personal and private. My probing deeply into deconstruction, deeply into the philosophy of Derrida (which is not the same), seems to influence many different fields of my (musical) life. Deconstruction is not something that stops at the borders of my academic work, at the borders of the university campus, or when I turn off my computer and play the piano. I realize how deconstruction influences my way of teaching jazz music (that is to say, how deconstruction is present and 'at work' in teaching jazz music), how it influences the teaching material I am composing for my students, and how it thus influences my students as well.
 'If deconstruction takes place everywhere, it takes place, where there is something' (Letter to a Japanese Friend, p.4). Something. Just something. This means that deconstruction is therefore not limited to meaning or to text in the bookish sense of the word. In many different places Derrida warns us against the idea that deconstruction is 'only' a particular reading strategy of philosophical texts. 'I would say that the most effective deconstruction is that which is not limited to discursive texts and certainly not to philosophical texts, even though personally - I speak of myself as one agent among others of deconstructive work - and for reasons related to my own history, I feel more at ease with philosophical and literary texts', Derrida says (Brunette & Wills, p.14). And he continues: 'Beyond an institution, the academic institution, for example, deconstruction is operating, whether we like it or know it or not, in fields that have nothing to do with what is specifically philosophical or discursive, whether it be politics, the army, the economy, or all the practices said to be artistic' (Brunette & Wills, p.14-5). Elsewhere he relates this more explicitly to the pedagogical institution: 'Deconstruction - or at least what I proposed under this name that could just as well had been another - thus is, in principle, always oriented to the teaching system and its functioning in general' (Politiques de la philosophie, p.65, my translation).
 Why 'The Truth In Teaching'? Why this provocative, presumptuous, perhaps exaggerated title? It might be a reaction against the provocative, presumptuous, perhaps exaggerated pretensions of education in general. The purpose of education, schools, teachers is to tell the truth, i.e., to discern and decide between the true and the false. The pedagogical fiction is that it is possible for the subject to know the object of knowledge. As Derrida points out in GREPH, the ideal of an educated person held by a given era is always predicated on the basis of a theory of truth (cf. Ulmer, p.167). The concept of logocentrism - the dominance of the word in a conception of knowledge that involves truth based on presence - fits. Education - in its various forms - is still dedicated to the achievement of universally applicable goals pre-defined by the grand narratives: emancipation, democracy, enlightenment, empowerment, truth (cf. Usher & Edwards, p.210). And for a long time, truth means the correspondence between knowledge, or insight, and the object to which it addresses itself, the close(d) correspondence between the representation and the real (cf. Deconstructive Sociology).
 But this is still the 'old' truth. We are still dilating on the conventional ideas about Truth. What about this other idea of truth, this rethinking of truth? Let's continue. Let's go on without ever arriving at this 'new' truth. Différance.
 The Truth In Teaching is about this impossibility of closure, about opening. The Truth In Teaching is about teaching that is always already multiphonic, an interplay of voices. It is about the difference between teaching the 'old' truth and the 'new' truth, the difference between teaching as the 'old' or as the 'new' truth. It is about the difference between giving a lesson where what is given is clear and the unforeseeable, unexpected, impossible gift, present in each lesson. It is about the difference between musical texts that try to produce closure, that attempt to fix, and texts that invite a further writing and a rewriting (writing in a broad sense, including for example playing, reading, acting). The Truth In Teaching is about what this means for the teacher, the student, and the teaching material, when teaching means to give (safe) time, space, place for the advent of the other. That is, to really give a lesson is not a matter of intention and intentionality and, at the same time, impossible without the intention to give.
 These few exploring, outflanking, but hesitating, deferring, and above all, dispersing remarks should sketch the outlines of a section that contains in its very heart the most impudent proposal to a deconstructive music. Music 'composed' deconstructively on purpose. 'My own' music. (I stress 'composed' and 'my own' because each performance of this music means an expropriation at the same time). On purpose? Is that possible? Does deconstruction not withdraw from any intention? (Deconstruction is not an act or an operation, not the reflexivity of an ego or of a consciousness, Derrida explicitly writes in Letter to a Japanese Friend.) Let's say for the moment, rudimentarily and cautiously, I attempted to 'compose' music that defers the possibility of closure for as long as possible (somewhat like the poems of Mallarmé, perhaps).
 Around this heart, around this center - a center that can easily change into a periphery, a supplement, a margin - around this item that is, after all, just an intermezzo, around this proposal for some (deconstructive) teaching material, I have 'composed' other texts that (hopefully) open a space for rethinking (music) education, for thinking (music) education otherwise, for encountering already existing thoughts on (music) education otherwise.