It could be that this elevated notion of otherness is just a prejudice of the times, a particular emphasis that has been reified and given transcendental status in response to rather un-transcendental motives. Whatever it be, otherness can only be what it is within experience, playing at most a non-standard role. It still qualifies an object, but a differently formed one. The particular role is a very simple negative one: it is the antagonist of the same, it blocks sameness from totalisation. Any individual world is, however, already unable to be a only world of the same. Even at the most minimal level its life is continually fed by a stream of irreducible difference. Its very life is in the disjunction between a principle wholly contained within itself and contents that cannot be generated or reached by that principle. Again, it is an emphasis of the times which sees the same as possessing an agenda of subsumption requiring a response in the form of militant resistance.