In effect, the necessity of gaining access to the meaning of the other (in its irreducible alterity) on the basis of its face, that is, its nonphenomenal phenomenon, its nonthematic theme, in other words, on the basis of an intentional modification of my ego (in general), (an intentional modification upon which Levinas indeed must base the meaning of his discourse); and the necessity of speaking of the other as other, or to the other as other, on the basis of its appearing for me as what it is: the other (an which, however, already signifies alteration of the same, of the other as what it is) could be determined rigorously on a purely ethical level, without prior eidetic transcendental analysis of the relations between ego and alter ego in general, betweeen several origins of the world in general.