This paper argues that the irreducible non-correspondence between descriptive regimes—here termed translation resistance—is not a defect of finite cognition but a constitutive condition of creative becoming. Beginning from a transcendental argument about the structure of ontological description, I show that translation resistance is structurally homologous with what Whitehead calls Eros: the cosmological lure toward novel realization that depends on the non-coincidence of
actuality and possibili…
Read moreThis paper argues that the irreducible non-correspondence between descriptive regimes—here termed translation resistance—is not a defect of finite cognition but a constitutive condition of creative becoming. Beginning from a transcendental argument about the structure of ontological description, I show that translation resistance is structurally homologous with what Whitehead calls Eros: the cosmological lure toward novel realization that depends on the non-coincidence of
actuality and possibility. Both phenomena share a relational structure of productive asymmetry and a self-cancellation condition—their resolution would destroy the dynamic they enable. From this structural homology two further claims follow: love is best understood not as achieved mutual transparency but as sustained responsiveness to an irreducibility one neither resolves nor abandons; and creativity is the generation of a new descriptive regime through resonance across resistant
registers, not the overcoming of difference but its amplification into form. The paper situates these claims in dialogue with Whitehead, Deleuze, and Buddhist pratītyasamutpāda, arguing that a meta-ontological account of translation resistance
clarifies why these traditions converge on the productive necessity of non-identity.