[Mario Hierro] “I would bet for a complete substantialization of desire.
Desire being everywhere, anywhere. Desire being a substantive, not just a verb (desiring) or an adjective (desirable). Is not just that I desire to eat, neither that eating is desirable, but that desire eats.
A desire without a body, with its virtual machineries or diagrams. Desire as an univocal content for multiple expressions. An immanent god.
Concentrical and centripetal vectoriality, condensation into affective attractors and passional triggers, dissipation into actions and explosions. Also power, as its codification, regulation, fixation, domination, exploitation. Also potency, as its force, capacity, frequency, liberation, exploration.
Potency as the affirmation of desire; power as its negation; resistance, as its reaffirmation.”
{AK}: Desire, as an ur-principle, has no problem at all in producing a semantic field or grid, total in coverage, one whose seeming universal extent can then be substantialised on the basis of this completion.
Desire and dunamis; the power of need, the power of capability. Interlinked concepts, a semantic climate within which it is always possible to dwell.
But the exclusive privileging of this conceptual level, in its conventional senses, as in the artificial constancy of a ‘climate control’, bespeaks only the monoconceptual conventionality of the substance it incessantly declares.
The anthropic dramas it celebrates through such declaration, are artefacts of encounter, selected and scaled; metaphysical habitats, self-veiled.
[Schopenhauer]: “On the contrary, we freely acknowledge that what remains after the complete abolition of the will is, for all who are still full of the will, assuredly nothing. But also conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this very real world of ours with all its suns and galaxies, is – nothing.
This “nothing,” however, “is also the PrajnaParamita of the Buddhists, the ‘beyond all knowledge,’ in other words, the point where subject and object no longer exist.” (WWR, pp 41112)
{AK}: I guess, if anything can be ‘Nothing’, i.e., if no determinate substantia can be said to obtain, in such a way, as to ground traditional metaphysical schemas, or ‘worlds’; according to the remits of the usual dogmatisms; then ineluctably another way of proceeding comes into play, beyond & other than the usual response of simply restating neglected metaphysica, as ‘positions’ or posited anchors. The angst of anchoring proves redundant.
But the calculi of clinging to determinations of ‘desire’, as in the simplicities of positivist instrumentalisation, more often than not leads only to the classic Occidental oscillation: “Rather than not will, it wills nothing (destruction) at all” Heidegger.