As if to say that witnessing is unalloyed representation, while the intermediate consciousness is pure will, plural and dark, known only by reflected light. Neither of these is quite as expected from such a simple picture. Witnessing, having no identity knows nothing of uniqueness or particularity, it is not seeing from one point of view but from all points of view, and certainly there is no question of qualia of or consciousness 'existing'. It turns out that such notions depend on non-substitutability which is the most abstract form of will. That you cannot, must not be substituted is to exist in the world, it is sexual but only to the degree that sexuality is embodied in difference, this and not that. Is that all of it or only the most of it? Everything in will is dialectical, it goes over into its opposite but only to become more what it is and go around again.