Either human subjectivity - the capacity to negate, critique, reflect, decide and discover - is a particular type of assemblage among many others, in which case it is a contingent configuration of a 'more absolute' transcendental cybernetic law among a broad spectrum of other chemical, biological and artificial configurations - or the subject itself, with its capacity to negate, undermine and conceive, is the 'more absolute' element, and the ability to conceive of itself in systems-theoretic terms (i.e. objectify itself) is a mere stage on its path of labor as it tarries with the negative. Does it need to be one or the other? Is it possible to savor the antagonism between these two approaches and listen for a new thought? But wouldn't doing that be taking the latter approach? And yet couldn't what happens as a result be described in terms of the former?