I read this in an essay and I'm not quite sure what I've read. Help?
Power won’t disappear because subjectivity itself is constituted relationally. One cannot stand outside networks of language, desire, labor, history, biology, social production, etc. Political matter is not a means of emancipation, but a negotiation between unavoidable entrapment. The subject then is to be conditioned, produced, and infiltrated, being dependent on forces placed above itself. No method of rebellion could ever step outside of power because it never had legs to stand on. Additionally, resistance itself would already be traced by the systems it opposes. The subject cannot be sovereign, it is detrimentally restricted. Again, it is a being desperately daring to escape capture without succession. No matter how the subject aspires to be its author, it stagnates into such a site of conflict–so then the only plea to be proposed is as a matter of conscious abandonment.
Under these conditions, even Max Stirner’s exceptionally charming “Unique” loses its novelty. The ‘ego’ starts to look less as an independent proprietor capable of navigating itself and the world because it is conflicted by the entanglement from a default imposition; deluding that it, too, isn’t a dressed up model that designs a fragile process struggling against forms of capture that can never be entirely maintained—not to imply that Stirner asserts it can be absolved. Surely, the “Unique” has the ability to filter “spooks”and utilizes constructs as disposable means if sought. The takeaway is that the “creative nothing” can never completely pilot itself because it never had the opportunity nor a chance to be self-originating; nonetheless, there’s emphasis on the methodology proving to be a productive corrosive response to fixed ideas. Where it falls short is it represents liberation “for the individual” opposed “from fixed individuality itself”. The egoist unknowingly opens the door to the dissolution of the ego they wanted to liberate. Once all transcendent foundations are relinquished, the “Unique” itself doesn’t evolve into a sovereign atom, but more so a shifting field of forces and desires. In actualization, the “self” is already a ruminating crowd. After all, desire is not centered in a rooted ego–it can’t be. Rather, it is distributed across social and machinic processes. In other words, the unconscious is not a theater starring a “me”; it is a factory producing connections.
Thus a question arises: “After the deconstruction of those holier than thou, what new forms of life emerge?” If your answer is not swayed, reformulate your beloved ego to free the flows trapped inside the ego. Then consider this “self” as not “property”, but a temporary arrangement of intensities to use. May your ‘permanent essence’ eventually transition into a shifting constellation of drives and appropriations. In sentimental regards, redirected questions dawns introspection: “Who is being liberated? Who desires? Who refuses? Who appropriates experience?” Singularity aren’t simply be reduced to systems of production or social machinism. “If the “Unique” is then perceived as an event, or an ephemeral crystallization of forces, not an identity, could this allow singular beings to exist without becoming metaphysical essences? That perhaps a “self” is real precisely because it is created and not discovered, never finished. Something composed through action, desire, and tactility.” Since it’s logical to say: “I am this,” without believing that identity is eternal. Besides, if desire belongs to no transcendent order, then is where the “self” could be looked as a creation rather than property, continually composing from forces, desires, encounters, and refusals: A “self” that treats itself as art rather than ‘essence’. Consider this a conceptual theory that holds zero scrutiny since the irony of the synthesis recenters the subject precisely where it was trying to decenter–or better put, a creative outburst for you to or not to contemplate.