So again in union there is this ambiguity between its being an internal and self-directed experience and an expansive, inclusive and boundless one. The boundaries merge into the world, but not us, the merging being only the manifest simplicity of natural inclusiveness. There is in this a pivot, point or bridge, that enables a transition to no-self, the undoing of separation, and this transition point is always at the 'I', both the subjective pole and the concrete, most embodied and most individualised self, now strangely free and detached from the defensive energetic investments of socialised individuality. Why should the 'I' be so pivotal? Perhaps because in development, it was the way in, the precondition for mattering in all its forms, or else perhaps it is a purely cultural thing since it's clear that the present of the self is also the historical present, and hence that the mode of its presence is historical - although the latter may also be the form of a fatal historical illusion. Another characteristic of union is that it is autonomously purposive in initiation and heteronomously purposive in performance, but unstably so, so that it embodies a movement towards a resolution which can only come about in a form of annihilation in which subjectivity and performativity are identical. It is an eclosion of sensory being centring on the felt body, but by the same token is the vividest metaphor for knowing.