“ The Aristotelian paradox of potentiality, the gesture of the scribe who dips his pen in thought and writes solely with his potentiality (not to write). The trace, writing "without presence or absence, without history, without cause, without arkhē, without telos," is not a form, nor is it the passage from potentiality to actuality; rather, it is a potentiality that is capable and that experiences itself, a writing tablet that suffers not the impression of a form but the imprint of its own passivity, its own formlessness. But everything is then once again complicated. For what can it mean to think neither a thing nor a thought, but a pure potential to think, to name neither objects nor referential terms, but the pure dynamic of speech, to write neither texts nor letters, but the pure potential to write? What does it mean to experience a potentiality, to experience a passivity, if the words "experience" and "passion" still have meaning here? Does the aporia of self-reference, which the writing of potentiality aimed to resolve, not then return once again? ”

Giorgio Agamben, Potentialities - Collected Essays in Philosophy, Stanford California, 1999 (ch. 13, pg.: 216-217)