If there is an ultimate or paralysing inquiry along the nerve of the 'I' or along the nerve of the 'this', then there needs also to be an account of the inquiry itself. As an activity it cannot be only a chosen option derived from a posterior world, produced say from a twist in language - who would choose the twist? - but must belong to the nature of the reality that is being disclosed. The 'I' is both passive as the deepest of observers, but also active, pure act, which is experienced as the sense of freedom. A freedom that was extinguished in the act of choice is not what is meant here; it must be a freedom which is preserved untouched by the act, and so at the level at which acts and choices are real it can only be the choice of an absolute impossibility. Again the impossibility is not the object of a choice which could just as well have opted for the possible, but must be the very nature of the choice, of the very act. This points to the life of the 'I' or more accurately the 'I' as life. The pure subject is both in serene repose, perfectly adequate to itself, and by virtue of that very self-adequation it is divided against itself so as to be an unstanchable outflowing... To attain the transcendental realm, upstream of all positive experience is not so hard. What appeared to be dazzling whiteness begins to reveal some outlines and so you think can begin to feel your way around and lay out some boundaries. But it is harder than it appears, you need to think in a different medium where object and subject are almost completely interchangeable. What you begin by stuttering out seems to consist of banalities falling far short of the target.