It is hard to impossible to understand desire. Why?
Entelechy, active power, conatus (effort/striving), nisus (urge/desire), primary force, internal principle of change, light, self-surpassing, ebullient surplus, inner movement, proprioception of mere time, or what Kant called spontaneity.
Why? Understanding means comprehension, and comprehension means has been capped. The comprehended thing is something immanent (contained by) consciousness.
This is why predication is identified with the subject. The ontic subject and object appear both as (1) opposed epistemic extremes or even ontologically opposite entities, and (2) two aspects inside the knowledge relation—general concept and particular (thetic) individual.
- The universal, or predicate, if not generated in the subject, is accessed by it. Strawson says that the general concept is the recognitional component of experience.
- The particular, or subject, is posited (and thus ideal) in its form, to be sure, but it rests in the field of receptivity, which is the gateway to the extra-volitional, which is Kant’s foundation of otherness.
No wonder why desire (Chokmah) is the second most occult element in Jewish mysticism, and others. Desire, or motion, is never on the side of the has-been-capped. It is both absent in itself (except as feeling) and pre-hensive in its intentionality.