Desire is not driven by the optimisation of freedom of an enlarged self although something like this appears in the mirage that it projects. In the satisfaction of desire, however, there can be a kind of ecstasy which intimates that its source is in our original nature. There is a standing apart from the entire process of life as it has been experiences up to that point, leaving it intact but disengaged; we are disengaged from it, untouchable, all the polyphonic participation of the finite predicament is lifted into aesthetic enjoyment, where sensation is an end in itself. In such a state it is easy to feel as if we are more true, and generally there is no other, the other essential to eliciting the state having collapsed into the enlarged and mirage-like self. This fullness of satisfaction seems an immature and narcissistic form of religious experience. The resulting dialectic of desire thus circles around the origin of consciousness or of being as located in the mind. Formations come about, born of the surprising intensity of certain acts, which unfold their own kind of topology, laying out cardinal directions which relativise subject, object and mediation, developing thought which is more or less true to this formation and to its overturning. Formations succeed each other in endless variety and we assume that these are all states of the same self, never wholly given in any of them. The idea of the quest for this self arises, an infinite quest since there are only ever disparate fragments reflecting the endless reflexivity of the mind, like pieces of a puzzle that never add up. Each state has its own version of what the self is for it, versions immanent to the mental world, but projected into some impossible priority of self-reflection. Impossibility fascinates, fascination is identification, and identification is subjectification. As against this there is only the slow and difficult development of discrimination of mind from self.