Questionings always fail, they don't get answers and besides, the questions they generate are necessarily the wrong questions, but what they usefully attempt is to position the subject differently with respect to the stream of experience, of life. The subject is thus taken to be a sort of retina or perfectly absorbent surface. The very opposite of a mirror, it is pure dark responsiveness without response, of which Valéry's implex would be the most refined projection on the cognitive/affective level. An analogy might be with a black hole in which the event horizon corresponds to consciousness. The subject is not consciousness, but the latter is the only evidence there is for its presence. The phenomena in appearance are a kind of functioning which could not come about in any other way but are not expressions of the pure subject any more than the plumes of energy - originating from quantum fluctuations - which surround it are expressions of a gravitational singularity. But then it seems as though it has a directionality, as if, like a surface, it faces in a certain way, as if it can swivel and alter the direction that it favours. This impression is partly an acknowledgement of a superficial dynamic, the extraordinarily frictionless quality of attention turning to face whatever any mental process opens before it, but on a deeper level the swivelling of the subject refers to a non-volitional conversion, also known as a metanoia, or a turning.