8.1. Practical wisdom
As the act has been dissociated from the form, a withdrawal towards the first would mean a renunciation of efficiency, and therefore of effectiveness. The change of emphasis will consist of requesting an assumed form from its content. But this can be done according to a double emphasis: on the “creative possible” or on the “consciousness”.
Why does the relationship between these two terms seem problematic? It is not a question of identifying a third term from which they would proceed, and which would reconcile them as having a common “origin”, but of simply clarifying their relationship. I want to suggest that this is related to the role that “will” plays in the spontaneous representation of the two terms. Will is often viewed unquestioningly, in its activity of determination, as an “element”.
Why is that the case? It wants the ends to be determined every time. This does not mean that, philosophically, it cannot be interpreted as a will that wills itself, insofar as it keeps rejecting its goals once they have been achieved. But it is not enough to have deconstructed the absolute finalities (the end of history in a fully self-aware “Spirit” (Hegel), a “supreme being” (classical metaphysics) or a “total man” (Marx)) to be done with finality in general. People usually set themselves specific goals and try to achieve them. Rather, the end of absolute ends leads to the proliferation of individual ends (the ends of an individual, ...