So the «we are all haunted and united» does not differ from any kind of classical ontology except that it gives an easier sense of redirection to another ontic form – but it gives a definition of nowness that is radically unprecedented as we do not exist at all, as one certain and definitive entity but through the combinations of ghosts and thanks to they will of power, will of domination – the skin is not the capsule of a series of ghosts (which is not even the case when we are dead – when the Being turns out to be a series of definite was subjected to the process of reintegration – Spinoza gives us this sens when the conatus fades away, the parts’ combination become the subject of other conatus that integrate them to different bodies, decentralizing its organs) it is the surface where the conflict happens between ghost, where they express and exchange.

My skin when touched summons what we call Demons, in the neutral original sense, portion of incomplete subjectivity that brings with them flash-images, possible tensions, the germs of project to come – but when touched the toucher is touched as well; opposing Seeing as grabbing a part without having to give in exchange the toucher is also touched, not at the same place, but at any other he feels through its fingers the intensity and variety of images he can produce. He does not have access to the images which are, paradoxically, the invisible of the skin, but to the passages, not from one subject to the other that are the product of active synthesis made in retrospect, but to the passive synthesis linking dimensionless percept to the next one regardless of their qualitative content, summoning the continuation of intensities whose nature extends from indifference to madness, from cold to hot, from quiet to noisy.

The position of touching and being touched – a risky game – the finger can see what they did not want to see – the eyes have natural eyelids but fingers does not have natural gloves – the act of skinning someone is less an exercise of suffering than having the skin reconstructed so thick that the sensation is muted, the affection rendered to the unspeakable forms of the intensity gently agitating in the distance and finally the unique ghost is trapped in the skin-door as an unambiguous form of self.

I think, I am – but i am as well a thinking-thing, thing amongst things, object possibly neglected or desired, used or set off, i am also breakable and decorative just as all things – being a thing with the privilege of thinking without loosing complete status of being an I, my identity is mingled with objectivity – not a rational superior position, but a descent to the abyss of extensive matter, passive synthesis that beholds the consistency of my organs and my I without any inflection. The touch is always suffused with those crisis that are not interrogations. If you question upon it you are already displacing somewhere else (speculative reason is a method of exorcism as a totalitarian politics of ghosts. One ghost is extracted from the multiplicity, ghost-in-chief coming to the head of a now organized exchanges of shallow intensities – the void of all organs can only be made up for with a whole new logic of myth which is the Spirit of the Nation, determining the organs to exist in an all-encompassing holistic connexion with a superior entity, vague, undefined swallowing all organs down to the stomach of an everlasting on-going process of signification) you allow the ghosts in your house to have a meditative talk with you and you pretend to reach rationally what you have admitted as being already true: that they exist as a rational thing. Meanwhile the possession of oneself is a crisis – just as the one Descartes experienced each day of its introspection - – which fixes the metaphysical position of the I and replays the position of the anthropological one, always torn between a disembodied and eternal thinking and a misleading nowness. (the I never stops resisting the doubt, satisfyingly combining the ghosts inside so you end up, as always, being nothing more than a self – what prevents me from thinking that a demon is creating sensation of doubts so i can think the I is the only passive resistance to those sensational effects? is it the intentionality of the demon?. Who between Him and I have to think of an I as substance in order I exist?).

For Descartes thinking being mislead is enough to uplift the misleading, so, the undermining axiom is that the demon is also an I that thinks he is, and is enough with that – how can a pure I that resists the misleading operation of other demons can mislead another I resisting its demons. Not only solipsism, being enclosed in an I, but distributive solitude, petrification on difference between net of beings, and the cherishing of distance as a silent intentionality.