If the metaphysics of desire is substantialised as an explanatory perspective, it requires objectifications, both at the level of principle and the level of operation, as structural moments of the logic describing its metaphysics.
Desire is always towards the desired, which is refied or objectified, as such.
If the metaphysics of physics and energy (energiea, work) are similarly substantialised, as explanatory perspective; objectivity has to do with structural recurrences, and appears through the interaction of these structural recurrences, of which a subset of interactions are held to constitute systems of structural perception – they perceive those structures.
These two substantial perspectives play out the twinned logic of another, ‘form’ and ‘force’. The articulation of the one always requires the resources’ of the other. Although, it might be thought that the logic of negation emerges out of a more formal logic and consideration suited to objectivity, rather than the differential nature of force or forces, the notion of a ‘force’ is just as much a reified identity or ‘object’ as any other, and therefore just as susceptible to the logic of position and negation.
Prior to any consideration of positing or negating; of ‘form’ or of ‘force’; the radical origination of identity, its usual metaphysics and supervenient assumptions, all need to be mobilised according to a mutual combinatorics of speculative projection; where each and every objectification, regardless of its traditional positionings as ‘element’ or ‘derivation’ in local metaphysical systems, is a possible substance and monadic perspective in its own right.
This is a necessary first step in generating the space of a new theoretical agility, no longer solely bound by perspectival notions of structure, and the local notions of ‘purpose’ and ‘interest’, from which their identifications originate.
The radical mobilisation of identity does not at all neglect the traditional and contemporary preoccupations associated with those notions, but neither does it neglect the opportunity for unlimited intercessions prior to the operations of identity assumption. Such a radical priority alone, cannot constitute a General Conceptual Holography, especially when considering the contingency of both logical, and chronological or temporal, sequencings. But as methodological strategy, enabling nominally ‘radical’ considerations that nonetheless exceed the holding patterns of positivist fixation responsible for the blockages of contemporary thought, the tactic of declaring a more profound beginning, has the merit of introducing a fresh configuration of inquiry, unburdened by the insular expectations of habitual nostalgia, though without neglecting possible aetiologies of that nostalgia.