By what strange vectors and flows does a thing arise? What auspicious skies must form into what constellation to give birth to a thing? With static discharges? Perhaps it’s merely a human hobby, the formation of objects, and the handing out of properties, some local and parochial transcendentalism. A cottage industry. But still… are there bounds upon where this can take place? Or is it more of a ‘if you can apprehend the context, you can fit an object right there in the scenery’?
Thought aims at something, in this at least the old logicians seem unsurpassably correct. The question is whether or not that something to which thought is directed precedes thought, or is it just there as an effect of its the aiming, a symptom. Generally we need to go somewhere if we want to see something in particular, so already we intuitively grasp that activity is at the heart of bringing something onto stage, and that this activity in key ways determines how a thing enters (“I walked right past it”).
But if thought is a force, then it will necessarily lock in with other forces, for better or for worse. If it is a vision, it is a vision of those things that are trying to subjugate it, or which it itself is to liberate. What we might need to look for is not a ‘milieu’ but a mesh, stable enough for things to arise, but always connected to that which fosters their composition or decomposition. Once again it becomes more than obvious that ‘private thought’ is a chimera, as much as a thought that is supposedly ‘complete’. More important than asking how it ends, its problems are always problems of entering, of beginning, of the things that determine, how one moves and the deviation one is forced to take.