In this essay I shall consider the way in which the nature of writing and inscription suggests a new reading of the ruin, where text is indicative of a fundamental ontological chiasm or flickering. The notion of the Fragment is important here, wrestling it from the domain of the Romantic ruin to review its role in the ruin's being and put forward the fragment as an independent entity, eschewing both totality and linear temporality. In this way, the ruin is seen more as a threshold mandating a different and chiasmic experience of time, including deferral, disruption and incompletion withal. Using the modalities of objects including dust, air and stone, I suggest that the Anthropocene mandates a reappraisal of the standard view of the ruin as a static representative of progress or lack thereof. By using the poetics of Thomas Stearns Eliot, and both Jacques Derrida and Maurice Blanchot's work on the irreducibility and temporal undulation of writing, amongst others, I suggest writing as an object that shares and reflects a deeply shattered ontological state that oscillates in the same space as the fragmented ruin, and further, how writing itself originates in and on stone, the stuff of the traditional ruin. Dust and ash materialize ruin and writing, underlining a fragmented ontological equivocation, where writing could be seen as a performative form of ruin. This is thought additionally to suggest a less anthropocentric view of the human both within and on the earth and how the idea of ruin might be relevant to thinking being, mandating a reappraisal of how non-human objects might think in a possible interconnectedness. In this essay I shall consider the way in which the nature of writing and inscription suggests a new reading of the ruin, where text is indicative of a fundamental ontological chiasm or flickering. The notion of the Fragment is important here, wrestling it from the domain of the Romantic ruin to review its role in the ruin's being and put forward the fragment as an independent entity, eschewing both totality and linear temporality. In this way, the ruin is seen more as a threshold mandating a different and chiasmic experience of time, including deferral, disruption and incompletion withal. Using the modalities of objects including dust, air and stone, I suggest that the Anthropocene mandates a reappraisal of the standard view of the ruin as a static representative of progress or lack thereof. By using the poetics of Thomas Stearns Eliot, and both Jacques Derrida and Maurice Blanchot's work on the irreducibility and temporal undulation of writing, amongst others, I suggest writing as an object that shares and reflects a deeply shattered ontological state that oscillates in the same space as the fragmented ruin, and further, how writing itself originates in and on stone, the stuff of the traditional ruin. Dust and ash materialize ruin and writing, underlining a fragmented ontological equivocation, where writing could be seen as a performative form of ruin. This is thought additionally to suggest a less anthropocentric view of the human both within and on the earth and how the idea of ruin might be relevant to thinking being, mandating a reappraisal of how non-human objects might think in a possible interconnectedness. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]