Could this also be true of philosophy? Is a nonlinear philosophical work possible? Or is philosophy so committed to the line that hypertext can be useful as an expository device or an informational tool, but can never offer philosophy a brave world of new textual strategies?Kolb answers, not by ducking the question, but by committing to its assertions. In a space titled "phil. & line" he writes, "I want to make the strongest case I can that philosophy cannot lose its line, for I almost believe that this is so." And this is what I like best about Kolb's work. He engages arguments, and readers, directly. No easy trick in hypertext, with its many options. And this hypertext is labyrinthine, 307 spaces with 741 links. But the essential link, the one that holds it together for me, my string from Ariadne, is Kolb's voice. I trust where I am in the hypertext, even though I'm bewildered at times (I use present tense because I'm still reading this). Kolb's a good writer, a disciplined writer.