No doubt this world is different for her, maybe not composed of things. Deleuze's (Klein's) partial objects? Or not even an object, even if partial? Not stimulus, not pure flux, not pure content or matter without form. Not sensations. Does she gradually awaken to things (discrete) or is she fully aware of "things" (things-without-things)?

— Why not flux or sensations? For what would this mean? Pure colour without context or form? How would she encounter that? There are edges, boundaries, contrast. Stimulus? This is the reply of the outsider looking in. How would a non-stimulated responsivity—proper to humans—emerge from this stimulus-machine/apparatus? When would it arise? From whence and how? Is she animal, becoming human—does reason awaken or enter like a delayed essence?

— Why not think along these lines: she encounters world as we do, unthematized as things: intensities gathered in pockets, in places—dependabilities (as she comes to grasp temporality) (not yet regularities). Not demarcated as for us, yet demarcated: distinctions and flow. For there is no flux without some stability. There is no commonality without difference. I.e., metaphoric being.

- December 5 cont'd.