Thinking is articulating.

Thinking means articulating.

For instance, let’s consider the world:

Seeing the world, observing the world and then, thinking the world and, therefore, articulating the world.

Thus, thinking the world is articulating the world.

 But the world causes an incident and we have a problem.

A situation.

The world is not and cannot be articulated.

One can articulate. But the world itself remains in itself, un-articulated.

Thinking, articulating, only represents the world.

Thinking addresses an articulated representation of the world.

Thinking / articulating the world is not a substitute for the world.

Thinking / articulating the world is always-already being out of the world. QED.

One may believe in “changing the world” by addressing a representation of it.

That is to say that a thought of the world becoming a structured representation of the world becomes an ideology.

That is to say an instrumentalizing vision of the world, determining and exploiting a relation with the world, leading one to believe that one has changed the world.

In reality, it is not what it seems.

Only the relation has changed, not the world.

 If it is not possible to produce a thought of the world that is not a determination of the world, then, at least, let’s try to produce a thought of the world that also, and at the same time as the thought itself, thinks its relation with the world.

A theory that would not only represent but would represent in relation.

A careful theory, attentive to the elaboration of a dialoguing practice with its object.

Here, the world.

A theory, therefore, grasping the world in a certain manner, that would produce not only a representation through extrinsic discourse but, in addition, would produce a certain practice of relation with and of the world from within.

A theory that would experiment its thought on the world and in the world.

A theory that would reinvent the world practically.

A world practically theorised.

(Rubio, 2011)