The problem of being within.

Perhaps one needs to start with a dialectic (It will be the only one here…

Thesis:  I feel the world to be in the middle of everything; A Self, a Soul, a World or a God. They are all names that make me confront the sense in which I am caught up in everything else. I am never me, but rather am ‘ME’s’ , embedded within in the whirl of a world, which I cannot easily tell myself apart from or even really tell myself apart form.

Antithesis: I am utterly finite, and gloriously mortal, with only one term future to look forward to. More than that I am at a point in the history on the planet and perched in a place or an apparent place in the universe.

I am therefore embedded in an apparent eternity of events, and yet only as I am utterly finite. My being delimited and restricted.

Synthesis: Maybe my finite is as a part of something else, something greater, call it time or whatever. This other then hold us within it, makes sense of the eternity breaking into our minds, and makes the eternity feel as something real and absolute. An yet in the same sense situates us as a part of this other, this maze. We are a point in a greater middle. We have come in at a certain point, and will tumble out at another. We are part of a general tumble in and tumble out. What then occurs to us as merely the middle of events – the confusion of a world and an mind that are not simply then all there is. They are part of a great continuum of events, and claim to be and a going out of things. They are part of a history.

More than that the fact that we are caught up within events now makes sense. What appears for us merely the middle, as we are beckoned into a certain future really, all about death. Where are we/ in the middle of a slipping time. A history of ends (our own or the world or wherever). Death that is our own being finite opens then on. It creates a complex three way slip stream to time:

 From Heidegger, a life makes sense as it dies. That is it becomes this life, here, this one up until a death. It becomes therefore a part in part, and not merely its passive master. It becomes that part in a hear and now that part which demands a finite being within a continuing unfolding.

 But also (following Deleuze there is no real limit of death. That is once one allows for the death as the finite point at the end, hen that point the name of time invades a mind. I am full of my own ghosts, that is my own slips in time which are in my mind as memories caught – and old life chocked out by time. T age, to live in time is to be a ragbag of memories and half real ghosts of thought. It is to be a myriad of beings all caught in the riddle prism of the body.

 Finally between this death at the being and at the end, there exists that other death, the mind endless enacts on its world, the death of the concept, The Kantian understanding mind looks at a world as a place for exclusion. That is it looks upon the world as a place in which, through experiment, through applied learning it can solve things. It endlessly catches up the living world, sucks out the life, and renders the result the husk o a concept. The concept is the thing bound in laws, the thing as it is known in the mind. The things as it ceases in effect to matter much or at least crazes to challenge my life with a life of its own. The Kantian mind is the perpetual butcher of reality. Or at leas tit is when I is performing the task of understanding the world. In that task in strips down what it is given, and pitched itself as the living creative objects, within a world of mechanical nouns, who have no live beyond the one it gives them. The concept in the humanities attempt to exclude all other life that its own.

 This rule of three criss crosses first religion and then philosophy: Chaos gives way to law (as chaos if itself full of laws) as hierarchy and fixed continuum: Tiamat and Marduk battle it out, but the world is the result (where Anu rule).

 Take as example Hobbes. On  fairly crude level one might look to Hobbes to contrast the worlds of Hierarchy and chaos. Chaos, the state of nature does not have rules both good or bad, what it lacks is rather any fixing point for certainties. Things just happen, and then happen again, and again. Reason has no answer to this happening because humanity can only reason from imagination, and they endlessly decay. The job then of the ruler is to fixed the definition, make reasons work, and bring out the incipient laws found even in nature The problem is that this process is terribly unstable. If (as in the Behemoth) a group of people sort to question those definition then the whole can very easily collapse.

 Hobbes then of a quick reading opposed a creative

 chaos, which in a sense is too powerful, too overwhelming, the ruler is the barrier, the one who steps in and directs the elemental flows. The ruler then allows reasons this pitch, and allows the golden rules already in the world to flower. On does to others as one would have then do to one, then in the context of the state. One might have that principle in the natural world, an yet one could never follow it. The other temptations, and creation of chaotic nature would over power any such principle.

 And yet look a little deeper and Hobbes s far more profound that this fixing of the assumptions. The problem  in the state of nature is not so much the restless creativity of the natural as the inadequacy of the human to encompass than natural. Our minds reasons with what they have, and what they have is decaying sense. That is our finite minds are always up against their own limitation, and their own death. There assumption, there perception rot into one another, and become small and confused.  Likewise reason has not foot hold of the soul. In itself it is merely a form of continua and it clearly needs beans to reckon up with It lacks them, or has only the rotting decay of the imagination to think with. T therefore has not access point on real definitive system to think with.

 So that between the sensation keep of the world and reasons a little death lies. This little death is the death and decay in my mind o my ability to hold that world. We respond to the worlds, to its chaos in a perpetual of rotting. Tat is through a continuum of decay. Our perception become in the imagination more and more unstable,  ore and ore decayed into one ant. External flux becomes and in terms world of slippage away, and a direction of confine. It is not that we then lack the power to take up these decays and arrange them into some kind of order. This ability is indeed the province of reason. Reason has then the power to make the slow slippage of decay reasonable. T can beckon it into time, and reckon it not units of faith or belief or the supernatural or whatever. Ands yet it can only do so if this decay is somehow restricted form its initial gambits, its initial assumptions. It the units it reckons upon are themselves slipping b then t he rules are otherwise.

In effect therefore a little death, the death or decay of sense in the finite mind lies between the realms of imagination and reasons. Our finite status makes then it simply impossible to grasp the world.

The response Hobbes advocates in the Lethian is that the ruler make good this little death, by opposing it or bringing it short against the great death. The ruler has then the power of life and earth overt their subjects. This power allows them the delays of the and to be bought short again the power of the monarch to actually kill. Ti power rises up then enough fear to stabilises those decays, of at least to render certain element in the mind fixed and steady. There are then created into the mind enough assumptions to fix the assumption for reasons. once then those assumption fix the mind can get one with what it ants to do: that is it can get on with this own living. Hobbes’ argument will effectively therefore pitch the micro chaotic deaths of the state of nature up against the Great death of the rule of law, law imposed death as a macro on the micro and s order it. I can o this because Hobbes introduce=as another theme into the micro deaths world. If I live in a world of flux and endlessly little deaths hen the only possible holding function for that death is myself. That is I need o invent a rubric of soul or being, or just selfishness to conational these slippages. The corollary of the state of nature, its real golden rule is that it creates individuals who operate upon immediate self interest. The hope of civilization, the violence at its heart in then the rupture of this interest. The big death can then has its power because the little death demands a self to endlessly contain and rework it. It is hen this self that the leviathan at firs threatens but then bolters. By annexing the power to kill it, it lows this self then to and itself place within a community. It becomes able to work out where it and everyone else is in relation to each other. It ceases then to be a whirl of selfishessness and rather blossoms into a citizen. The self will have in and through itself the idea that it is adequate to its world. That is the continuum it imposes on that world through reasoning becomes the walls of the minds itself. Good citizen learn then to exclude the natural, the chaotic as such. I is beyond their own identity, beyond their own province, other than those assumption that allow them to build where they are. The self’s that thrive in civilization, are then ones that exist in a world far removed from nature. Bolstered by the powers of the state and the resources of reasons they inhabit their own space, their individual minds, with their certainties and their calculations, an ignore are much as possible the chaos at the door. Nature becomes therefore something to let in carefully, and only imparts or at certain times.

 Hobbes therefore suggests not merely he three deaths: The death do sense, of being and of nature, and arranges an order between them all; But as I the process suggests that the principle element of thought in the finite mind is that one is always discovering what one already is rather than simply changing. The golden rule is in the sate of nature and known to all, even if they cannot harkens to it. Likewise the self is a problem n the state of nature, but an asset in the world of civilisation. Thought is not the progress from unknown to unknown so much as the focusing on those things I already know, and the remaking them t be more (or less) important than they were. It the what  already know, and cannot yet listen to the great revolutions lie.

To accept the finite is therefore to accept both death, but also the fact that within the bounds of what one already if (for to be finite is to be a bundle a set or series of elements0 there might be other focuses other powers. One might then be a bounded self at in pone place and at one time, and yet the bounds  that self might grow or lesson or might simply migrate. The power of the finite lies that unlike the indefinite or the merely in determinate it can move. It always asserts its bounds (even if it does not actually own those bounds0, and can then move those assertions as time and circumstance dictate. What I am in the Hobbes line of thinking, what I am as finite becomes a moveable feast. It becomes itself a pointer in a change; a way to change.

However there is a point hat Hobbes accept that very do schemata where finite and death run together. He doesn’t then escape the trap (an many more modern philosophers at least at certain point in there careers  do not) of only understanding the finite through death. That is of pitching or founding the finite of the dying. I am not infinite the argument in effect runs, I am not part of the continuum this move itself founds because I die. The idea of death easily slips into to easily from being the founding future the finite, via continuums to their only feature. I am not a part o the utter continuum (my own finitude actually fashions) because I die. We take then too easily the flux of time our finitude creates for something eternal and fixed (and so beyond us)m and see our finitude merely as a point on it, and not its creating master. Death then slips into rateability. For Hobbes this is seen in the fact than tee only ay he fixes the finite it fro death: Through the decay of sense the power of rulers, Once the ruler has united the two the search is over. The individual is fixed within their sate and therefore within their time, There is nothing more to be said to thought n the matter. Dead is enough to fix the soul, and rivet the individual into the state. It limitation or containment is  enough to exclude further chaos. There I then nothing more to being a good citizen than this control of death, and once it this controlled, thither problem vanishes. On becomes merely the good citizen in the part of something else One looses hen sight of the problem Ones own death (and the treat of it0 merle seems to be a part of the legal constitution, and not its founding future

 In a sense Hobbes is allowed to do this he wants the paradox here. The point is that once the finite has confused its creation with realty, it loos sight of how actually easy it is to unpick that creation. If one questions the assumptions as on is too likely to do, Hobbes suggests then chaos will break out. One will find the finite world suddenly is part of a chaos other than the continuum it felt itself to be within, as the state f nature violently imposes itself once again. However the same justification cannot be made for Heidegger ad his  philosophy of being. Heidegger’s flows wonderfully well the consequences of being finite, and dying. He outlines with complete genius how being needs o founds itself, an how it needs to worry about a future that is different from the past. He appear to restrict time, among the future gloriously other than the past or the present. He frees tense and allows time a freedom beyond a continuum. All well and good. But then of course he ruins it. He wants to found or link or loop being back to history. H wants it hen to really really matter beyond its own limited existence. He wants it to be a part in a continuum. And yet their flounders. He can only do ht it history some how becomes self conscious. That than if the flux of event being creates was itself the real being. The finite would then merely be the actors within a wider history. And yet of course it is this history, the finite would be defined but the flux that t created. The result of his move is the idiotic nonsense of fate and history in Being and Time, an nonsense that open Heidegger up to National socialisms and he assertion of the men of fate, which feed as of just such a paradox.

 That is in the creation of the finite there is always a tempting to go beyond what one is given and drive it elsewhere. The problem here is that the finite is not really enough for itself. I at least the finite the of the continuum is not really the answer. One feels that there must be something else also , perhaps some other finite breaking in the apparent continuum of time, always functions within it and through it. This other finite then in demanding a presence upsets the entire apple art. I demand the paradox of finitude raging against itself in the name of that which it itself has made. It then looses itself in the maze of unpicking what it is in the name of what it creates. The problem is then what is other element. What is beyond me and yet not caught up in dying big or little/ Here one can do no better than turn to that other God brother of modern philosophy, Deleuze. Deleuze, like Heidegger stars by pinning his hopes of Death, in this case micro death. If I have no soul then I am a all point undergoing in time something akin to death. ( form this habit or that. Wrap up this time or that, for a while. ,and  yet all such finite construction are bound up within the rubric of dying. I drop the habit, I move o or I transform them into something else and something lose again. I want to die I the sense that I need and welcome all these challenges all these changes. They are to me a time to have a life within. Deaths, micro deaths become then the fabric in organic impersonal life. They become the moments id  a series of challenges and changes; The pointers in a series of shifts. However the result is wonderfully theory of events which are the agents being these slippage but rather  a weak theory of individuality. He individual is merely hw ego or open cipher or monad which hosts events, and nothing more. The event of ones own life, the event of being an event is not then easy to understand., and Deleuze endlessly wrestles with this fact: open egos and monads become bodies without organs, which then become caught up the duality f the percept and affect. It is only in the final of these solution (n after  return to Leibniz in the folds) that Deleuze realizes that part of the problem is that death is not really enough to understand all life. One needs something else: one needs a boy maze up not of starts of matter or even shifting intensities (and take on some of the energy of death) but rather that uses the infinite to lefty the infinite shone through, and does so without events as such. That is one needs an alternative, an empiric system, which does not draw on the algebra of death as such, but rather asserts in the perception the power of the universe to break into the finite mind and in the affect the power of the mind to rework its own creation. This duality then breaks with death as its bound. I has rather the body as a frame in which and through which the whirling forces of nature appear and develop.

At which point of course on needs so much caution. What is it about the body of the latter Deleuze that makes it different from the body without organs? The answer is deceptively simple. The latter Deleuze has surely taken a division in Spinoza far more seriously that it had. Spinoza draws a radical(if very complex distinction between he power to understand (which is for him objective)  and the formal power of he attribute. Deleuze notes this (indeed it is his genius which defined this difference clearest), but then doe into really run with it. Spinoza point is that the body is the mind is the objective idea of he body. And yet it is an idea not f the boy simply existing, but rather of hat body in use. I is therefore the idea of he body as it is interrelating with the world. Perceptions (as they are objective) and then way the body grows or changes or evolves or shifts in some manner in the face of the picking or repacking forces of everything else.

A body as such cannot Spinoza suggests be understood directly. My body, that is as a formal bit of bodily architecture is utterly beyond my power of perception. It does not relate to me (but to the objective idea God has of the god as he has an idea of many things; objective ideas, powers of thought need to be attributable – that is they need not be in the one thing).  The body is then only mine in the interaction. That is as I inexact, and it relates through other element, the many it embraces, it bound together into a whole entity. They relation, this cross relation is as Spinoza says within God as he has an idea of the human body. That is the cross realisms are within the deals of God as he is within or has the idea of the attribute.

 The idea therefore that God and therefore our mind has of the body, the idea of it being a body serves as a basic substrata t its unity. As I have the idea of the body, all my thoughts are poured in a container of thinking, The ideas becomes mine. This move is achieve by Spinoza because prior to this game he has made two other moves.

 Firstly right at the start of Ethics he argues that God, or substance exists not as a thing or even as an attributer but rather is the eternal power of being in the middle of every. Substance, reality is then not he stuff of this or than, but the power to be constantly altering shifting and changing. As such it is eternal. Any then A little latter in Ethics Spinoza wonders how this power related to the power of objective thought to perception this being in the middle. Is his objective power, the one that coagulates all of an attribute in a single axis for thinking or perceiving (extension thinking or whatever), imposing something additional on the attribute. That is the attribute itself lost within continuity. No he answers being the existence of substance, that it its being a single thing (and perpetuating to an expression of it as eternal and continual) is itself fixed within  its own being always caught up in nixing everything. It perceived continued existence I therefore apricot of the perception of its essence y the attribute: it is a product of it being always in the middle of owing or making or being and bathing else. 

To be within God as God is then to be perceived under to agues or perception as a single looped thing.

The trouble then comes with how overspreads this move for finite things. That is how is the same punning of perceiving (obejctive0 ideas with the attribute. Objective ideas by themselves as a pluralistic and separate power. That is although at the infinite level 9wihin God0 the power o ideas and the power of being are indeed one and the am. objects and ideas indulge in a   strict parallelism. The ideas of a circle and the essence of that circle are indeed one and the same. There is very clearly nothing saying that the idea of the circle needle within the circle as such. The circle has no idea of its own. On the contrary what it is as circle is very clearly within God as he has an idea of very many things (all the minds that perceive it, and grasp at its rule0, The idea might then be a thing of reasons, bewitch is tied to an object, but that thing of reasons is not itself thinking as such. It is an idea whose power lies being in the many. Spinoza can of course effortless loose ideas within individuals and have ideas crises cross many formal modes because he has jut dissolves attributes into this very power for being in many things. The problem then of parallelism does not solve the how can I objectively perceive and formally think problems. It merely insists that if I can found an objective thought that is acting and perceiving in the someway (as  circle cannot be0, that is that contains its own perception of itself as it is formal being, then this will indeed be in a mode. Or to put it another way, if the perception of a thing are closed within the thing that is doing the perceiving, if the perception of the things and the hinges that is perceiving are defined as one and the same access all potential attributes, the parallelism assures us that his union is natural within God. That it this being across many attributes is what been in god is all about. Parallelism therefore defines the kind of object we look for, and the kin of relation one wants for that object. it is therefore in a sense speculative. It defined he agenda. Spinoza takes another 6 proposition to define how this happens.

 This happening occurs within the idea of the body as I have a functioning body, have an idea this at once a perception, but also is as it misperceiving (for as it is objective0 always leaping across ideas, always slipping nt0o the next idea, always enmeshed within a middle. It is then in thinking 9as opposes to mere objective thought):Tat is it is as it is in the one attribute and yet 9by the paralleled hypothesis) it is therefore in all attribute.; it certainly is also in extension (that is the changes of the body). It is therefore the essence of the mind. Tat is the condition of union within which objective perceptions are held within an attribute and so exist in a=our minds as we actually exist as they are for God, where this union is a necessarily corollary of his existence.

 In short a body asset actually exists givens the finite embodiment of something that otherwise only exists within God as  such. That tithe body directly expresses the power of perceiving to change as the power of a mode to be, and unifies these as long as there is a Body. That is as long as it exists in a single simple thing. This union though is far from simple N the contrary external objects contently challenge and change it. The problem with the external is that it exists also in God in another idea. The perception he has of it is therefore in itself always otherwise that the perception of the single attribute. An attribute is always up against others slipping into it, and must make the soft its formal existence within the content of these slipping ideas

Spinoza thereof actually uses parallelism to contract and then navigate a very real difference. Perceiving a thing objectively need not be to formal be that things (on the contrary he knows that it is not). Both might therefore very easily have an objective perceiving ideas and yet spread that idea across numerous modes. Indeed in many sense this is has normal means of behaving. If then he does this the gap between the way God is formal existent each of these modes, a d the perception he is also creating in them as he is thinking them all as absolute. There I n existence not even death as such linking them. This does not mean Spinoza suggests that something could not occupy this pace. T is perfectly possible to have ideas that share this ability to crises many individuals an be in many elements at once (these are formal notions, such as that of a circle or that humanity makes),This space is then thinkable., and yet this thought needs to be had. That is, it needs to be carefully unpicked from each mode which having the ideas reaches towards the ret, In this reach Spinoza is course aware that the originally idea itself evolves and changes. It is not quite what it was Be this as it may, failing this deliberate effort by the modes there really is nothing occupying this space of thinking not even death. The only guarantor that his perceiving will come out right in the nod (that is has a real substrats0 is that initial equation of perceiving as being in God as he is infinite. God does to or better cannot make up more of himself to perceive with he only perceive what he is as he is infinite and so contains all and rather all within elaborate continuum in being.

To perceive inadequately in then to have something else creating within ones own mind. On must respond to this creation, as one is a body,; not must echo it across what one is , and thought the echo of a consciousness. One must then live it. And yet one cannot as such immediately comprised t (it takes adequate knowledge to do this0. There is area difference then here, one that is other than the differing process the thing building within ones mind. What is moor e here there is a difference n that difference, a positive effete  by another can be directly comprehended in the mind. It can rush out, and for a pact or a common notion with that datives it pleasure insofar as it is given pleasure (this might not be with the pleasure giver itself, it might early be a part in it). What gives pain though cannot be reconciles to me as it give pain. O better it can only to reconciled within God as we contains absolutely bloody everything, when I see the sense and pattern within the move. The negative therefore forces me to comprehend an absolutely infinite God, while the positive meets and greats me. The effect is a very complex three way difference. The posited combines with a me, in a way that is not white right’ for either of us. That is in a way that doe into describe either of us as such. But rather is between us both. The Negative demands I look to God. But the objects itself as it exists remains different That is it sill reaches into me as itself (or across the myriad other tat and my self beyond) and pulls be this way an not that .I am therefore sill poleaxe in it, and change through this effete in my own way. The important point here being that as it is in reaching into me and forcing its upon me, I do not grasp directly hat it is, I am simply caught up in an othering otherness which I formally respond it. The otherness of the other is then different from your personal change that may respond to that othering. They are simply not one and the same. The response I make is locked within the continuum of my body, there other as another is found elsewhere. The mystery of inadequate knowledge is that this difference cannot (as such) be directly comprehend. God does not reconcile us directly as others here therefore. There is in short here a difference different to death.

The existence of another body as rather living interacting this, their internal being, their unions, and mine is therefore simply an other difference to the difference in earth. The logic of being a mind which contains itself within being a continual ideas a s living body, is therefore that different bodies are locked in different initials and potentially within their own types of continuum, These continuum then contently interact and pull across each other, and they the substrata in each body remains unique (and anyway is unique to an essence. Or to put it otherwise there is simply not one way of differencing here (an that way caught up in the rubric of micro dying0. Spinoza creates something much more complex that that. There are myriad difference in God, who is merely the being of difference or better the being of being in the middle of a differing process. There is nothing them ensuing a single axis indifference beyond the fact that do perceives all difference. The continuum itself is not a vital force (it is an off shoot of perception), different differences lies perceivably in different was within God This does not mean that elaborate and elegant links and loos between thoughts cannot be made thy can but they take effort, hey cannot be simply assumed or allowed for.

It is this respecting of different difference that e Body without organs, the body as differing events leaves it, cannot directly  master. It wants being to be too simple it wants o have a Spinoza type body, under at deleuzian bergson set o difference (on difference is temporal). In a sense this does not matter, this is deleuze after all and not Spinoza writing. And yet I making this move in the name and clothes of Spinoza, Deleuze allows a strange union to open (where this is none) between Bergson and Spinoza. this union allows continuity and certainty wallahs in. It has warped our readings of both, and wrongfooted recent philosophy England at last…Deleuze final reading of Spinoza in What is {philosophy is far more profound. He at least realizes that the framing differences of the both then allow it to grapes at the universe are simply differently to the differences of events. This difference needs o be allowed of and even relished. I is the difference  the window only a force and there reaction o that window as a thing different, from the difference of being caught up on a change as such ( Deleuze calls it at one point a phenomena difference as opposed to a nounmeonon difference) He therefore finally allows the difference as such. He allows the body its on unique finitude. The finite that frames the indefinite, and creates beyond and trough it a continuum which if different fro death, and different (in effect) from it.

The body is then  second pointer inbeing finite. To have a bodyis to be able o demand a pale in a continual world. ties to have the right to thinking as I m within that body localized continua, all around h. Continuums that are the only reconciled as they are within this body, and held within the ideas it promotes. The universe ceases necessarily o be the one continuum, both rather opens out into being a patchworks of slivers, which cannot be easily reconciles or directly fed into each other r(or can only in a cha challenging change). This picture (one deleuze knows very well, and is the master of), is then held or unified not in the single mode of difference as such and not really in the infinite but in the local, in the being for a while and for reasons what one need not understand a body.

However infusing Spinoza approach I yet another take o the finite. If the body is a perception, and a perceptions necessarily problematic (it has to be otherwise one would as one perceives directly exists) this rather implied that there eyes a finite to perception  and one distinct from bodies. That is to perceive places a mind in a certain place and at a perception time, and does not as it is perceiving. That is as it is the taking up of another and the building oneself inside that take of the thing different to ones nature. The light of borrowing that perception surely is, the borrowing form the world is therefore also finite force to be thought.

Right are the start of Treatise Hume argues for another, very distinct and origin) form of the finite. The finite is to perceive in a body the body, which we merely assume must be finite (as we have no real idea beyond the perception of what that body is). But rather the finite is the effect we perceive that abode has upon the world, an effect that insists that he world appease to us as a certain level and at a certain scale. That is the’ body; of tee idea we have of the body is that which ensures at a certain moment  in the probably continuum of creation (this is n certain continuum for Hume0 we being: A is perception. We see process (which even knows what they are0 as red o smell a smell or something. Perceptions are then the least snatches of reality which we can take. They are the gulps for us to be with.

This thus it might be agued that Burgos says almost as much (the bergosonians would claim that at least for their hero), However Hume does on t point out two far more original arguments, on the one had he suggests there is clearly a cost or at least an addition dimension o perceiving. There is clearly an agency, a, a body is a dams good name for it, which imposed this theory of level on the world. There is then in all likelihood (actually we cannot avoid this thought) so agency, something which is ensuring that we see this series of whatever as a red. Perceptions therefore I a sense relate to hat we are, and what we make (Spinoza says as such o cause). Or to put it otherwise there exists certain organs f the mind which produce our perceiving as and when appropriate.

 On the other hand, and here Hume is at his most original, there is a clear difference between reality and mere ideas, a difference we all too easily inner. Imagination and reality are one and the same ideas, green or Paris is green or Paris in either. The difference is that though that reality, and those imaging that sparkle of it have a certain finite element, a light or a vivacity or liveliness or urgency. They feel in some almost indefinable was different in our minds. This vivacity has then a hobo power. it naturally bleeds across differing perception scurrying here or there h, back or firth left of right. T is active, and endless producing coagulation and conjunction in means and powers. T lines and looks reality, , it moves things this or that way, t defined a world of us. Our power to imagine and the reality hat tumbles into outer world is the separated by this vivacity, this limited extra dimension to  perception. This extra is blended across perceiving. If those perceiving are themselves perceptions, the vivacity conjunction and the whole is greater than the parts (I a kind of covalent bond). Alternatively vivacity can be lent to imaginations, making them more reel, and more like actually reality. And yet here one needs care. One can lend reality in this manner and yet if one does one must not expect its power to remain eh same, the vivacity of reality is endlessly finite it can then be slowly pumped out or, frittered away in fantasy.

perception therefore is  caught up in a doubling of my finite On the on hand there s in me some organ of the mind, which somewhere modes or ensures that radically different reds looks alike unto me. to hear a sound or see a red as such s then never simple to see this or that red. It is that to see reds (all potentially reds0 or that shade. The body is that which opens up hidden links and loops between elements. I is than tent hat arranges into  mind the hidden journeys of being by which radically different or at least different element sin a me are caught up nit he same thought, or appear to me the same as I produce the idea stat compose them in my mind in one and the same manner. My bang therefore is ways t double or treble or echo up my perceptions. The conditions of perceiving a perception ensure that perception has potential allies and friends. This accord is then Hume thinks the principle of resemblance. To resemble is the natural state of the perception as it tumbles into the mind and comes not this here and now, but rather merely a perceptions.

 At the same time all perceptions as their relate to reality bleed across one another, A perception is not then something simply as their for me. I is something whose reality is to create direction and urgencies within my mind. I am not the muster of these agencies, which actually pull me outside of myself or anything I can image. I reach into h world, and suddenly then find myself on an unpredictable journey, I am not simply there, but rather am already going somewhere. Am sucked up and sucked through a loop hole in my own being. I am caught up in being other, for a while. The mind then becomes a series of journeys, of scurrying passages and movements between things.

 Here one needs a further word of caution. Both of these principles care caught up in a domain of exhaustion. Resemblance is a  sense stats with exhaustion .To resemble is to have stepped beyond immediate reality and into the haunting nether world of shadowy thoughts and half imaging. T is therefore to think of a world beyond the mere world that is there. One can journey in that world until one is absolutely lost, and within  very little hope of retuning. One can attempt to mirror the real world, and attempt to build another world or identities and cuases0 that apes that reality, making it  more steel and more real. Resemblance I then driven to build a world of things and essences a world of selves and stable realties, to save it room it own haunting exhaustion. It does so inspire of the a fact that such a world might well new nonsense and the fact that the very ac of resembling is enough to query an ideas and make it no longer what it ought to be about. We flee then to a world of certainties (which is naturally itself finite to escape the madness that comes absolutely free of charge within perceiving.

In contrast continuity might b directly on the way of reality and yet it needs so much care. I ha a real power to confuse facts and fiction, That is it one has a lot o vivacity in stock as it were hen this has it own momentum, One might very easily confuse a few imagining within it. These imaginings will take on the powers of vivacity (they will borrow them wily nilly). Hey will then grow and change of their own accord. The mind will suddenly then find its bright paths o vivacious thought is suddenly compromised as a welter of imagination flock it, and exhaust that path. Error exhorts realties  and render them increasingly opaque and valueless. They flock into the realties of the mind and drive it this way or that. The reality (the vivacious thoughts0 I have need then to be endlessly placed and maintained – they cannot be simply assumed.

  It is to bridge the problems of these two principels that Hume’s great other principle causality is formed. Causality stabilizes continuity be enduring that certain loops off being are sealed in on themselves. They become a series of this following than, ad doing so in a certain order, a stock sliver of truth that xenia be plugged in and used. A continuity of thing and that is hen rapped p within a certain identity a certain series of resembling moves This identity allows this sliver to stand out, but also opens to as a possibility there might be other links, other loops. One caudally therefore opens out onto the like cases. But more than that is some of these like cases are not that alike it provides a reasons of that. It might be that the original causes are wrong or it might be that there eyes something different in this like. That is the loop, which is after all spirited in time and place room the original loop might not be quite the same. The resembling has then mislead (and contiguities ,that is working out which things really are next to one aother0 can explore that error. Error becomes then in causality a thing to explore. One expects a series, and it does not happen one looks into why (why the resemblance was wrong). causality therefore serves to capture exhaustion or at least define an axis within which using both principles within mind might not easily over expend itself.

 We are finite in a sense in a threefold sense: finite in death and a seeing, finite in being a fleshy something and finite in our perceiving. I\n all these cases, to be finite is to be places within the world, That is it is to be a fragment within a something else. A fragment at once distinct and apparent rule book of inner kingdom, which animates something beyond it, but does o as it is a part in that beyond. We are finite therefore by in a way as Deleuze says that frames the infinite. It allows that which is beyond to appear or to wave at us thought he omits we ourselves impose upon it. To be in the middle is therefore to be a part in something utterly beyond, and yet a part which also appears o be sharing in that beyond or even building it. This then opens out a deep problem of chicken and egg. Which came first the being utterly within or the fact that we or something within us or though us is animating the beyond? Which matter the more, our posting within the middle or exanimation that comes with that position/ o can they be meaningfully be separate/ Hume (and spinxoza0 in a sense argue they cannot. My perceiving or my mind at clearly a part in something utterly different from me even as I animate the  world, To perceive is therefore always to allow other forces to break in. The  tools I perceive with are either allowed for in nature ( the idea of God is for Spinoza a part in nature) or else there are the mystery of a beginning which I cannot prob (Hume). either way my existence as the animating force is secondary or cannot but be confused with the power of the universe that is actually braking through in me (as reality0, and animating me even as  see it. The power for my life is (in the Best Deleuzian sense) therefore for both these thinkers external to me. It breaks upon me, giving me a universe and a live at one and the same moment. One cannot then separate it o pull it into an elsewhere. The kind, and its perception, the animating force of the universe and our knowledge of it, then arise together in our minds (our bodies and our perceptions are both  part I the process0, however both these thinkers are pirated to pay the necessary pries for this move the price is than in the acts of creation which make our minds we have to real rights to claim the continuities we perceive ad hat appear to hold every in place,  the continuities off space and time are absolute and real .the world might be creating them in our mind merely as a way to be grasps this is Spinoza), the truth might not be the continuum as such (the perception of he attribute) but rather the being emerged within a thing (which perforce needs to be every and their continual). There might then be point that times sliver away form each other, point where I though the world, the continuum was going one way, were it was owing one way for me, own, and yet actually as the world was otherwise it erupts differently latter on. or (to follow Hume0 conium might merely be the last rouge point of my mind the point I flee to when I cannot face ideas anymore, the point do exhaustion of ‘well this ideas will always hold the rest’

 That is The continuum IO se might either be a product of the exhaustion in my mind or else merely a consequence paid by perception in its ovation within the world. t might not be the real stuff itself. If t is not, as Kant remarked we might be in trouble, This continuum this logic of inferable is what gives our mind its apparent right to order the world. We use continuality as a an active agency We assume time continues as it has and the space is just their, and must do so Kant suggest to have a right to act. The idea then that we animate the world, (and not that the world is animate through us0 and the belief in a continuum which is the agency of animation are intermeshed. It is to the pretension them of this being continual the next section moves. For it is it okay to understand the world as a continuum (and not a middle) the problems of the world are flattened into another axis. One  would not be in the middle of… so much as an expression in  gathering continuum, with necessary before and after, and implied datablity. IN short time would have the master and not simply being within things (in which time is merely an adjunctive to the middle as it consequence.) It is to this claim he next section turns.