Philosophers offer paradigms through the combinatory design of subjective presuppositions and the postulates of the dogmatic Image — an elementary way of stating it is that the philosopher grounds a metaphysics and a phenomenology in and as subjectivity. What is offered is a hermeneutical posture that mediates all phenomenon through the Image to complete an understanding. The paradigm conditions the things in the world to be recognized according to the transcendental, a priori framework of the faculties, coordinating all possible experience for the subject. Possible and not real. The dogmatic Image functions “silently” by crushing thought beneath “that of the Same and the Similar in representation,” alienating “the two powers […] of philosophical commencement and recommencement.”[1] The two powers are the experience of the real. There is no prior mediation in the real, forcing the thinker to parse through phenomena according to anything else but Representation.
The dogmatic Image of thought is internalized. All that transpires through the Image happens within the mind of the subject. The Image produces Representation thereby colonizing the subject and manufacturing subjectivity. The subject has no say in the Image: Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ unifies the subject under rationality, Kant’s transcendental structures coerce the subject to locate a true object of experience, and Plato’s reminiscence instructs the interlocutor towards a moral recognition of an object in compliance with the Good. All three facilitate Morality and posit thinking as a harmonious activity adjusted to the given. This foregrounds the ontological question where being is informed at the metaphysical level and a stance is determined on how one ought to have a lived experience. To exist without the Image is the ultimate act of refusal,
it is a question of someone – if only one – with the necessary modesty not managing to know what everybody knows, and modestly denying what everybody is supposed to recognize. Someone who neither allows himself to be represented nor wishes to represent anything. Not an individual endowed with good will and a natural capacity for though, but an individual full of ill will who does not manage to think, either naturally or conceptually. Only such an individual is without presuppositions.[2]
There is no refusal on the part of the philosopher thus there is no departure from the Image. The philosopher is “perverted by the generalities of his time,” yet the one who refuses is the “Untimely, neither temporal nor eternal” and “lacks the compass with which to make a circle.”[3] The third postulate declares values—Morality—to be the utmost influential element in common sense, values are nominates and attached to signs. There is no compass to guide the thinker to a signification, he is not looped into a common sense that dictates the sense of the sign. The one who refuses is not attached or indebted to his time but merely participates on the surface. He is not colonized by the Image nor is he obligated to any Representation that prescribes what he should or should not identify with, but plays with matter as if it is always something new.
A philosophy without presuppositions “would take as its point of departure a radical critique of the Image and the ‘postulates’ it implies. It would find […] its true beginning not in an agreement with the pre-philosophical Image but in a rigorous struggle against this Image, which it would denounce as non-philosophical,” and would come “at the cost of the greatest destructions and the greatest demoralizations, and a philosophical obstinacy with no ally but paradox, one which would have to renounce both the form of representation and the element of common sense.”[4] A true beginning is pure movement beyond the steppingstones of recognition that lead it to a given, there is no lighted path. If philosophy is to be the creation of the new—a thinking project that functions as a radical break with homogeny—it must launch from a start that has no teleology nor any moral axiom that influences its movement. The Image is non-philosophical for it commands. A command is compliance with a set authority that dictates what can be by setting the limits of the empirical and transcendental operations. Deleuze claims that “thought could begin to think, and continually begin again, only when liberated from the Image and its postulates.”[5] The project of the postulates is to locate the ways in which the subject internalizes the dogma of the Image. Locating the postulates is to know how the mind and thus all experience is subjectified.
Paradox is crucial for thinking beyond the Image. It is the “ally” of thinking and does not have solid ground—there is no horizon that illuminates, nominates, or signifies matter. It is inconsistent and is a contradiction. Representation cannot account for paradox as it cannot be located entirely; it does not operate within recognition nor does it rely on a harmonizing distribution of the faculties—thus paradox opens a movement. Paradox does not allow for stratification. It is movement alongside creation—it is thinking and creating simultaneously—thinking becomes creating. Creation exerts itself on the subject, it is direct participation with experience and inflicts “the claws of a strangeness or an enmity which alone would awaken thought from its natural stupor” releasing an “involuntary thought” that has no determination.[6] “The transcendental operation of the faculties is a properly paradoxical operation” and what appears is a discordant harmony where each faculty “communicates to the other only the violence which confronts it with its own difference.”[7] The paradoxical operation commences in the experience that shocks and disintegrates the complacent Image in thought.
It is “something in the world [that] forces us to think. This something is an object not of recognition but of a fundamental encounter.”[8] Opposed to recognition, “the contingency of an encounter […] forces thought to raise up and educate the absolute necessity of an act of thought or a passion to think.”[9] The philosophical activity is thinking per se, recognition is not thinking but is merely agreement and application. Thought is impelled to think for itself in the encounter as it cannot recognize any object or signification. The thinker confronts the unconditionally new. The new “calls forth forces in thought which are not the forces of recognition, today or tomorrow, but the powers of a completely other model, from an unrecognized and unrecognizable terra incognita.”[10] All that is new begins in the dark, comes from an untimely force, “from a central bad nature and ill will” that ungrounds thought from its “‘innateness’” (Descartes) and “treats it every time as something which has not always existed, but begins, forced and under constraint.”[11] Thinking is “primarily trespass and violence, the enemy” and begins with “misosophy”—a hatred of wisdom—that unravels the postulates from the end, turning its back on the goal of the Image: knowledge.[12] Ill will, hostility, and refusal disintegrate particularly the first and second postulates of good will, good nature, common sense, and good sense.
It becomes clear that the “conditions of a true critique and a true creation are the same: the destruction of an image of thought which presupposes itself and the genesis of the act of thinking in thought itself.”[13] The dogma of the Image categorizes experience and Representation allows the subject to be content with the given. Representation is a past tense operation, all possible encounters are networked and subordinated by the method of recognition—having knowledge of phenomena is to appropriately apply the Image.
The object of encounter is “opposed to recognition” because it “can only be sensed” it is not “recalled, imagined or conceived.”[14] The encountered object “gives rise to sensibility with regard to a given sense.”[15] Sense is the genesis of the true. In the encounter, sense
is not a quality but a sign. It is not the sensible being but the being of the sensible. It is not the given but that by which the given is given. It is therefore in a certain sense the imperceptible [insensible]. It is imperceptible precisely form the point of view of recognition – in other words, from the point of view of an empirical exercise of the sense in which sensibility grasps only that which could also be grasped by other faculties, and is related within the context of a common sense to an object which also must be apprehended by other faculties.[16]
The imperceptible remains outside of recognition, enabling the thinker to approach the object without a familiar network. The imperceptible functions similarly to the unconscious—a drive and an empty pattern that operates undetected. The imperceptible cannot be defined by the faculties who identify by locating substance. Signification is the symptom of the Image, it represses anything on the outside through Representation.
Representation is stasis. Beyond the Image there is movement that creates the new. It begins with the encounter and follows with the imperceptible. The imperceptible “moves the soul, ‘perplexes’ it […] forces it to pose a problem: as though the object of encounter, the sign, were the bearer of a problem – as though it were a problem.”[17] The seventh postulate hacks the problem and resorts it to a futile device that bears need for a solution. Problems are not addressed to a “singular object,” as Plato would advise.[18] To pose a problem on matter that is imperceptible is a paradox but nonetheless is the function of the creative act. Problems are Ideas, the Ideas “refer to a para-sense which determines only the communication between disjointed faculties. Neither are they illuminated by a natural light: rather, they shine like differential flashes which leap and metamorphose.”[19] Ideas communicate disjunction between faculties. The flash is not a sustained from an ever-present source, an Image, but is like a house of mirrors where the light sneaks through the gaps and produces according to the movement of the real: scattered and unpredictable. Ideas are obscure and “there are Ideas which traverse all the faculties but are the object of none in particular.”[20] The object is not unified by the Same, instead the faculties perform their own style on the object; there is no harmony that delivers the same Image to each faculty. The notion of a “natural light” is “attached to the Idea – namely clarity and distinctness; and from a certain supposed origin – namely, innateness. Innateness […] represents the good nature of thought form the point of view of a Christian theology.”[21] Innateness is common sense and the ‘clear and distinct’ supports recognition where both “push the Idea over into representation.”[22]
The obscurity of mater does not mean that all matter is universal. The obscure is distinct, particular; the sign without signification. It is not to melt the world simply into an inability to participate where everything turns entirely inaccessible, it is to have the encounter be the potential for creation—it is a way out of a static predetermined world of Representation. For, “distinction-obscurity becomes here the true tone of philosophy, the symphony of the discordant Idea.”[23] The discordant idea incites a new movement in the faculties, calibrating obscurity with its encountered intensive, which is to say the object is in becoming. In fact, “the Idea in the doctrine of the faculties requires the explosion of the clear and distinct, and the discovery of a Dionysian value according to which the Idea is necessarily obscure in so far as it is distinct, all the more obscure the more it is distinct.”[24] The obscure-distinct paradox routs any possibility of Representation and resorts to a particularized potential in the moment of the encounter. The Idea is emulsion, an assemblage, it is the momentum within the encounter that disharmonizes in order to truly initiate the faculties. Yet, the Idea “cannot be reduced to sense, since in turn it is also non-sense.”[25] Paradox is beneath every movement in thought without an Image.
Non-sense in the empirical operation that functions like a “secret of sense” pointing “towards a transcendent limit.”[26] It is the obscure “sub-representative” determination.[27] It is the intensive without form, the growing and the becoming that goes beyond a transcendent limit, or a prior categorization of thing encountered. The proposition in postulate six designates only “a single case of solution [… that] would acquire its sense only within a complex capable of comprehending imaginary situations and integrating an ideal of community.”[28] This procedure neutralizes the problem as it regulates the potential of what is encountered to a single or a handful of interpretations that are Good for the community. In the real, “to solve a problem is always to give rise to discontinuities on the basis of a continuity which functions like an Idea.”[29] Problems are the “how and the circumstance” and the propositions are that which “draw their sense”; it is to not close the problem and the solution in a circle but to have a problem find a problem find a problem ad nauseum.
Sense, the problem, the intensive, is “the dark precursor.”[30] It communicates the encounter to the faculties and makes “the different communicate with difference: the dark precursor is not a friend.”[31] Schreber manifests the movement of the dark precursor by reformulating Plato “in his own way and in restoring them to their original communicative violence: the nerves and the annexation of the nerves, examined souls and the murder of souls, constrained thought and the constraint to think.”[32] Communication does not fall to the wayside with the dark precursor. What Schreber proclaims as his experience is not inexpressible. There is a serial connection but no “collaboration with regard to the form of a supposed same object or to a subjective unity in the nature of an ‘I think’. It is a forced and broken connection which traverses the fragments of a dissolved self as it does the borders of a fractured I.”[33] Scrambling the code of the Image frees the subject, consequently dismantling the subjectivity installed by the Image. Identity is ruptured and a true creative act, one that situates the world according to the thinker, emerges. “Problematic Ideas are not simple essences, but multiplicities or complexes of relations and corresponding singularities.”[34] The Problem or the Idea exists within an ever-shifting web that allots possibility in the real. This transcendental exercise is “a properly paradoxical operation” as the exploration “of Ideas and the elevation of each faculty to its transcendent exercise” amounts to the same thing as “the Idea which itself offers sense to language refers each case to paradoxical functioning of the faculty.”[35] There is no invested signification, language does not operate as a command. Instead it is the sign that causes the problem to emerge.[36]
Outside of the Image, language, too, has a free play. The problem and the idea contribute to the “paradoxical functioning of the faculties – including, in the first instance, sensibility with respect to signs – thus refers to the Ideas which run throughout all the faculties and awaken them each in turn.”[37] What is encountered
are the demons, the sign-bearers; powers of the leap, the interval, the intensive and the instant; powers which only cover difference with more difference […] when each disjointed faculty communicates to another the violence which carries it to its own limit, every time it is a free form of difference which awakens the faculty, and awakens it as the different within that difference.[38]
The dark precursor communicates violence to each faculty. It is a power, an assemblage of the problem and the Idea, not a defined object, but the object in its intensive—the object’s experiencal and experimental potential. The dark force does not permit unification beneath an Image, instead a disjointed communication shocks each faculty to its highest degree.
The dark precursor leads to Deleuze’s philosophical movement of transcendental empiricism. Opposed to the organizational method of the postulates, transcendental empiricism operates in the real, it applies itself to real experience and not possible experience. It begins where
each faculty must be borne to the extreme point of its dissolution, at which it falls prey to triple violence: the violence of that which forces it to be exercised, of that which it is forced to grasp and which it alone is able to grasp, yet also that of the ungraspable (from the point of view of its empirical exercise).[39]
The Image had previously determined the signification of the sign, unified the faculties, and left no dark spaces—all encounters were accounted for not only by the designation of the object, but additionally by the way the faculties determined possible experience for the subject. Transcendental empiricism is the operation of the faculties on the dark object of the encounter where “each faculty discovers at this point its own unique passion […] its differential and repeating element along with the instantaneous engendering of its action and the eternal replay of its object, its manner of coming into the world already repeating.”[40] The object, something that does not yet exist in the world, is in its genesis rather than a designated Representation.
Transcendental empiricism predominately operates through intensity. Intensity is “pure difference” or the new, the encounter of that which is not mediated through a given substance.[41] Intensity is “at once both imperceptible for empirical sensibility which grasps intensity only already covered or mediated by the quality to which it gives rise, and at the same time that which can be perceived only from the point of view of a transcendental sensibility that apprehends it immediately in the encounter.”[42] The imperceptible on the empirical level scrambles the transcendental and pushes it to its limit, confounding the faculties for they are unable to identify the thing before it. This is where thinking per se commences. It must demolish the Image, recalibrate according to each faculty’s style and create so an object can be accessible to the thinker. Accessible in the sense that the thinker has unabridged access in experiencing matter, can encounter pure distinct matter and not a signification.
The encounter begins with sensibility, “between the intensive and thought, it is always by means of intensity that thought comes to us. The privilege of sensibility as origin appears in the fact that, in an encounter, what forces sensation and that which can be sensed are one and the same thing.”[43] The encounter and the object that raise sensibility is the intensive.[44] The force denatures the code of recognition and “the Logos breaks up into hieroglyphics, each one speaks the transcendental language of a faculty.”[45] Sensibility forces thought to think by having the thinker encounter an object in the world that ruptures the complacency of the representational system—the intensive empirically and transcendentally does not convey a good will rather it seeks to annihilate any existing harmony. The force of the dark precursor “presupposes neither affinity nor predestination.”[46] There is no light in this process, what happens appears as it is created; there is no predicting what will be discovered. “Transcendental empiricism is the only way to avoid tracing the transcendental from the outline of the empirical” for there can be no reliance on a given material world to support experience, nothing is infused with meaning unless the thinker creates.[47]
Antonin Artaud, famous schizophrenic, poet, and thespian, disclosed his experience with his unruly faculties. It must be noted that schizophrenia is a possibility for thought that involves the abolition of the Image or any authoritarian symbolic field.[48] Artaud knew that he was in contact with a thought process that could not “be covered by the reassuring dogmatic image but which, on the contrary, amounts to the complete destruction of that image.”[49] He followed the principle of transcendental empiricism, the production of the real, by proposing “genitality” over “innateness” and “reminiscence.”[50] Genitality—the erotic sensation of the genital organs, the organs of production, creation, and bringing into the world—opposed innateness: the cornerstone for common and good sense that states representation exists within the subject, and reminiscence: the function that accounts for a mythical past, not allowing any new object to come into being. Genitality is the sensibility of the thinker in the real and the production of the creative act.
The difficulty with thinking per se is that “the problem is […] to bring into being that which does not yet exist (there is no other work, all the rest is arbitrary, mere decoration). To think is to create – there is no other creation – but to create is first of all to engender ‘thinking’ in thought.”[51] Artaud’s main concern was “simply to manage to think something. For him, this was the only conceivable ‘work.’”[52] The work of thinking is demoralization and is not innate, instead it is produced in thinking and is the true genital movement of thought.[53] Philosophical thinking forces thought to think its central collapse and to experience a powerlessness—to be at the mercy of the dark precursor and its intensity.[54] Thinking per se reveals “that there is an acephalism in thought just as there is an amnesia in memory, an aphasia in language and an agnosia in sensibility,” it unearths the limits of the faculties and incites breakdown of the boundaries of common sense, exalting the faculties to a hyper functioning that leads to the new. Artaud proclaims,
I am innately genital…There are some fools who think of themselves as beings, as innately being. I am he who, in order to be, must whip his innateness. One who innately must be a being, that is always whipping this sort of non-existent kennel, O bitches of impossibility! … Underneath grammar there lies thought, an infamy harder to conquer, an infinitely more shrewdish maid, rougher to overcome when taken as an innate fact. For thought is a matron who has not always existed.[55]
His stance is one of complete refusal to the supposed innateness of thinking. He realizes that ‘innate thinking’ is just recognition. In order to be he must torture himself in the real, he must create and sustain an unwell posture in order to withstand the imperial Goodness of the Image. Thought is genital, it does not exist unless it is subjected to the brute force of what it means to think, it must be wrangled out and struggled for, it must consist in a movement of and critique, destruction, and creation.
A transcendental empiricism eradicates identity and produces true individuation. The intensive fractures the I and does not bind it the Same, but to a transcendent “‘aleatory point’, always Other by nature, in which all the essences are enveloped like so many differentials of thought, and which signifies the highest power of thought only by virtue of also designating the unthinkable or the inability to think at the empirical level.”[56] There is no continuation or consistency within the differentials. The I has no rejoinder to identity because identity cannot fasten itself to any stable substance. Opposed to the subjectivity of the subject dominated by the Image, “individuation, by contrast has nothing to do with even the continued process of determining species […] It involves fields of fluid intensive factors which nom more take the form of an I than of a Self.”[57] Determining the species is a categorical, homogenizing technique of creating concepts, the human as a species is one that is supposedly constituted the same as every other being in its category. Individuation is fluidity: protean flexibility, becoming and movement. It cannot support identity as it cannot stratify and categorize. Individuation “operates beneath all forms, is inseparable form a pure ground that brings it to the surface and trails with it.”[58] The unconscious, that movement undulating beneath, resurfaces and glints through the cracks of the dissolving Image.
The dark precursor trails beneath every lighted and determined object, the dark underbelly of the unconscious sustains the represented world: the given on which the given is given. But this medium is not a resolute one, it is composed of intensive forces that do not cease. To experience the rising ground is to be in contact with a living organic movement: “this ground, along with the individual, rises to the surface yet It is there, staring at us, but without eyes. The individual distinguished itself from it, but it does not distinguish itself, continuing rather to cohabit with that which divorces itself from it.”[59] To be alongside ‘It’ is to move with a seemingly cosmic force that creates—does not sustain—all things in the world. It is to partake in genesis, to rearrange and call upon indeterminate matter not in a domesticating method, rather in the real as it unfolds. In this way does Stupidity become the operation of individuation, making all things unrecognizable.[60] The indeterminate and unrecognizable counter the goodness of the Image that harmonize the world. One observes that
All determinations become bad and cruel when they are grasped only by a thought which invents and contemplates them, flayed and separated from their living form, adrift upon this barren ground. Everything becomes violence on this passive ground. Everything becomes attack on this digestive ground […] madness arises at the point of view which the individual contemplates itself in this free ground.[61]
Stupidity “animates philosophy as a philosophy of the mind – in other words, when it leads all the other faculties to that transcendent exercise which renders possible a violent reconciliation between the individual, the ground and thought.”[62] The intensity of stupidity forces the thinker to activate their faculties in a way to meet the dark object. Stupidity is to stumble and grope in the dark in order to generate something that cannot be located, this movement is creation. There is no security nor complacent Image with Stupidity.
To be stupid is to create, to ground is transform. Overturning “the ground is the most dangerous occupation” when it surfaces it “assumes neither form nor figure.”[63] Individuation is not groundless, but is indeterminate, “the indeterminate insofar as it continues to embrace determination, as the ground does the shoe.”[64] It is to move continually instead of existing as a fixed subject. There is no possibility for the I and the Self to situate as they are “undermined by the fields of individuation which work beneath them, defenseless against a rising of the ground which holds up to them a distorted or distorting mirror in which all presently thought forms dissolve.”[65] Individuation does not eradicate the individual but frees it from the colonizing forms the Image stratifies. To be on the move is to live in the real where each encounter becomes an alternative point for becoming. Subjectivity is a ruse of the Image to get the subject to think in an established way. It is more feasible to control the individual whose thought can be monitored. Individuation constitutes
the highest element of a transcendent sensibility, the sentiendum; and from faculty to faculty, the ground is borne within thought – still as the unthought and unthinking, but this unthought has become the necessary empirical form in which, in the fractured I […] thought at last thinks the cogitandum; in other words, the transcendent element when can only be thought.[66]
Individuation is the individual thinking per se, it is the act of creation—not of a unified subject content to integrate and internalize concepts of subjectivity to fabricate being. The beginning of philosophy is a matter of individuation, it cannot be a reproduction or an application of presuppositions. It must be a pure activity—thinking as a pure activity. Individuation traverses all representations and is a rupture, a line of flight from the simulacrum of the Same.
Alternative to the apprenticeship is the one in the process of learning, who has no Authority nor method of assistance to calculate and lead to the truth. For “truth is a matter of production, not of adequation. It is a matter of genitality.”[67] Knowledge identifies concepts and the “calm” possession of solutions where learning constitutes acts “carried out when one is confronted with the objectiticity of a problem (Idea).”[68] When one learns one submerges “into the universal of the relations which constitute the Idea, and into their corresponding singularities”, and is not confronted by the simple designation of concepts.[69] It is to experience encounters as assemblages and it is to choose how to deliberate on what is encountered. Learning is like swimming,
The idea of the sea […] is like a system of liaisons or differential relations between particulars and singularities corresponding to the degrees of variation among these relations – the totality of the system being incarnated in the real movement of the waves. To learn to swim is to conjugate the distinctive points of our bodies with the singular points of the objective Idea in order to form a problematic field.[70]
Learning requires alertness and life, not the implementation of knowledge, but being there. Experience with the real is the circumstance upon which the creative act commences. It is a “violent training” that “always takes place in and through the unconscious, thereby establishing the bond of a profound complicity between nature and mind.”[71] The individual is not detached from nature but exits in the world within the most organic and holistic practice. The one who learns embarks on an infinite task as learning is the living passage between non-knowledge and knowledge.[72] Driving the learning process is the “true transcendental structure which unites difference to difference, dissimilarity to dissimilarity, without mediating between them.”[73] The lack of mediation points to the complete destruction of the Image and the liberation of the thinker. This approach engenders thinking in thought.
Learning is emancipation from the dogma that either persuasively suggests or explicitly enforces the subject to think in a coordinated and agreeable manner. It is not just that the Image of thought invades the mind of the subject, but that it tracks the subject into a clear and strict worldview that determines how it ought to be and how it ought to have object relations. Philosophy is to be genitality, a lifeforce and a drive of creation. The Image does its best to subvert this energy by rewiring the philosophical approach to be one of recognition and Representation. The individuated individual escapes the internalization of the image and proceeds to exist on the outside, in the sea of the real where every movement is a calibration to matter that is encountered. Philosophy insofar has concerned itself with a single subject that is internalized by the Image. Genital thinking opens space for a second kind of subject to surface, the true subject of philosophical thinking.
Conclusion
The dogmatic Image of thought organizes thinking beneath eight postulates. The eight postulates stratify the Image into a Representational code that is installed within the subject thereby coordinating a subjectivity that identifies and recognizes accordingly to a Master text. The subject is the site where the Image replicates itself. The Image is convention, common sense, opinionated hearsay that integrates into the faculties of the mind and organizes possible experience by determining what the subject can even experience. It partitions off the real and domesticates all becoming to being, to manageable appearances that are given. Everybody knows that all the subject must do is demonstrate a goodness by complying to the method of recognition and reaffirm supposed knowledge—this is what it means to think. Knowledge demands that the goal of thought is to come to a designated understanding. To come to an end, to cease movement. The subjective presuppositions of philosophy ‘begin’ philosophical projects by orienting the subject’s approach to their faculties thus orienting how the subject interprets experience. The danger of the Image of thought is that it fortifies a system that limits how an object is to behave in every possible situation. Under the Image there is only virtual reiteration of the given. Under the Image there is no new.
To create is to destroy and critique, to ultimately refuse what is given and accepted. Thinking per se is creating. The encounter of the dark precursor shocks the faculties with its force and strangeness. What is encountered is the intensive and not the substantive, an object that must be created as it is experienced in the real, not an object that is signified. To individuate is to create is to think is to liberate the individual from a subjugating Image that dictates by Morality how one ought to be and live. The thinker of genitality reaches an organic becoming. Genitality is experimentation, it is direct access to fecundity and the forces in the world.
The second subject emerges with the unconscious, unbeholden dark movement. It harkens the possibility of thinking purely, of creating. To destroy the Image in thought is to disintegrate from forms that dictate one must be and cannot become. At the risk of sounding naïve, the second subject liberates a direct encounter with one’s lifeforce. The epiphany strikes that movement is becoming is creating is thinking, is seizing the ownership of oneself thereby truly living in the world.
[1] Ibid, 167.
[2] Ibid, 133.
[3] Ibid, 130; 131.
[4] Ibid, 132. ‘Paradox’ as my emphasis.
[5] Ibid, 132.
[6] Ibid, 139.
[7] Ibid, 146.
[8] Ibid, 139; 144.
[9] Ibid, 139.
[10] Ibid, 136.
[11] Ibid, 136.
[12] Ibid, 139.
[13] Ibid, 139.
[14] Ibid, 139.
[15] Ibid, 139.
[16] Ibid, 140.
[17] Ibid, 140.
[18] Ibid, 140.
[19] Ibid, 146.
[20] Ibid, 146.
[21] Ibid, 146.
[22] Ibid, 146.
[23] Ibid, 146.
[24] Ibid, 146.
[25] Ibid, 155.
[26] Ibid, 155.
[27] Ibid, 155.
[28] Ibid, 162.
[29] Ibid, 162.
[30] Ibid, 145.
[31] Ibid, 145.
[32] Ibid, 145.
[33] Ibid, 145.
[34] Ibid, 163.
[35] Ibid, 164.
[36] Ibid, 164.
[37] Ibid, 164.
[38] Ibid, 145.
[39] Ibid, 143.
[40] Ibid, 143.
[41] Ibid, 144.
[42] Ibid, 144.
[43] Ibid, 144-145.
[44] Ibid, 145.
[45] Ibid 145.
[46] Ibid, 145.
[47] Ibid, 144.
[48] Ibid, 148.
[49] Ibid, 147.
[50] Ibid, 147.
[51] Ibid, 147.
[52] Ibid, 147.
[53] Ibid, 147.
[54] Ibid, 147.
[55] Ibid, 148.
[56] Ibid, 144.
[57] Ibid, 152.
[58] Ibid, 152.
[59] Ibid, 152.
[60] Ibid, 152.
[61] Ibid, 152.
[62] Ibid, 152.
[63] Ibid, 152.
[64] Ibid, 152.
[65] Ibid, 152.
[66] Ibid, 152-153.
[67] Ibid, 154.
[68] Ibid, 164.
[69] Ibid, 165.
[70] Ibid, 165.
[71] Ibid, 165.
[72] Ibid, 165.
[73] Ibid, 167.
bbkafka 