July 10, 2026

1 «Hope and the Art of Measurement»¹: «unease appears when we achieve our dreams»²: addiction to hope is the enjoyment of it, even on a path that leads to no fruition; hope is an experience on the way to the fulfillment of a dream; if the bar was set too low with respect to the goals, one gains hope along the way, but toward a destination that bears no fruit.

2 In analogy there is a comparison of things that are not equal, on ground where there is no equality; hence mathematical physicists find them insufficient; of course, for someone with the intuitive capacity to grasp similarities or differences between things, they do have something to offer: «a = a is not true in the measurable world»³—the comparison already has a pile of assumptions, two «a»s, one on the right and one on the left; their equality might be based on a homogeneity produced by too much distance; perhaps mathematics does not easily distinguish roots from branches, and for that it has to make a composition; this may be related to imaginary numbers — to the square root of minus one.

3 The similar and half-knowledges: they allow things to be treated as equals, but also to make distinctions; sufficient reason?

4 It is good to see energy as undivided. Technically the problem is «the problem of increasing human energy»⁴. Increasing energy is not only increasing power; it also requires increasing indivisibility, something we all notice with artificial intelligence: the new possibilities it offers come accompanied by castles it was unnecessary to build in the first place.

5 It is true that some things last longer than others, but it is also true that they do so through energy; energy makes a = a true, and it does so the fewer qualities it has.

6 If we take Jünger’s distinction between figure (experience), type and name, the longer-lasting experiences, the ones that do not end the day desolate, they have to…

7 We all have experiences, though we overlook them or, worse still, do not live «in tune» (music) with them (type). Of course, only in part are those experiences of the type, just as the type is not of the name.

The type is of the figure, the name is of the type, but the figure is of undivided energy; the experience intermediate between the undivided and the figure?

The problem with «the figure is of undivided energy»: «the figure is of» is almost correct.

But «undivided energy” is less correct, since seeing the undivided as a unit, as Nietzsche saw well, introduces a unity that belongs to the derivative, not to that from which it derives (“the undivided»).

But «the figure is of” also contains an error: «the figure» is accurate; «is of,» seen as property «of,» is a half-knowledge, correct insofar as “the undivided» is preeminent in every sense, but the undivided maintains that superiority without need of property, which is already part of the world of figures.

The word manifestation is multiple and accurate; it describes not only a multiplicity we associate with experiences, figure and type, but also the cost paid, the immediate decline once something separates and ceases to be undivided.

«The figure is of undivided energy.» «The figure is…,» correct. «of undivided energy»: incorrect, an approximation, based on distance.

Approximation based on distance: that is what premature value judgments are based on; what has distinct qualities is seen as homogeneous.

8 «The figure is of undivided energy.» In sculpture, even if it cannot be seen, it is insofar as it remains smeared with the undivided, a symptom of its long duration.

9 Whoever experiences sees the type and the names not only as superficial, but as dangerous; they are things that will not last long.

10 This is “the paradox”: experience (figures) is, insofar as (and in that) it remains undivided, what has greater duration; it is “the” undivided that grants duration to figures, and more to them and to experiences than to types, and more to types than to names.

11 “The undivided” is not only the owner of figures, types and names; it prefers itself over them; on this rests the critique of materialism; it is clear it does not mind making room for things, but also that it does not value them above “itself”; on this rest reverence for oneself, the grotesqueness of materialism, and the insufficiency even of experiences and figures.

12 «One may be needing a present help»⁵, but what we said before about “the undivided” is a present help, and therefore also insufficient: since there is nothing about the undivided, or rather: everything is there.

13 "It’s all the same": an expression like that only distresses those who value the figure more than the disfigured, «the bird that kisses the flower and the one being eaten by worms are both at the same distance from hidden beauty»⁶: merit and guilt: both yield to “the undivided.”

14 «All is vanity; everything that is born deserves to perish»: energy values itself more.

15 The undivided «values» itself above all experiences, types and names.

“Mere analogy”: it lacks equality. «Not leaving an action afterward lying in the gutter»⁷—its value is based more on the undivided than on the figure, more on the figure than on the type, more on the type than on the names. But each thing carries with it, insofar as it carries force, the force of the undivided.

«Dusk and dawn are a matter of perspective»⁸: both are evidence of undivided preeminence.