The science of experience

I would begin by saying that there is nothing here that has not been said. However, what you find here is my way of seeing, so particular, situated and concrete that it has no reason to make sense to anyone else. The themes are varied and their connection impossible, but phenomenologically there is a consciousness leveraging facts. Perhaps it is not a faithful testimony and much less a closed set of anecdotes, however there is a science that runs through it: the science of the subject. The method is anarchic and obeys to relationships rather than principles: there are events, crises and conjunctures that allow to start a discussion with readings, authors and authors, there are partial conclusions and the form is more important than the substance. I have chosen words because in them there is the cadence and slowness that the world lacks and because there is nothing to lose in their presence. Within the method there is an obsession: the sentence. The sentence is more than a set of words piled up to make sense, the idea has always been that only in the sentence rests self-observation. There is intuition, but it is not just that. There are facts, although it is not a chronology.