{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032300884955752215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003097345132743363, 'mean_word_length': 5.077956989247312, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Beckett's Metaphysics of Non-Location

Beckett's late work scrutinizes the false reassurances of Western identity pat terns. The fragmentation of mind and matter basic to the humanist construction of personal identity gives illusory solidity to some elements in the picture, while denying the relevance, even existence, of others, thereby threatening overall mental and physical health (wholeness). Applying Buddhist psychology to Beckett's scenarios and dialogues, I suggest that the late plays' nonlocational and anonymous character opens up a witness-point in which the disaster of Western ego-identity, based in fragmentation, is seen for what it is, rather than as the advantage and privilege of human expression. The trope of locality covers both discourse and dimension. A normalised ego-state is thought to depend not only on a stable identity/self, but also to rely for that very stability on a contingent location 'in dimension'. It follows that a mythos, or metaphysic, of non-locality must therefore dis solve both discourse and dimension. In the condition accepted as the normal humanist ego-state, dimension is identified with the body and biographical trajectory in such terms as 'native ground' and 'home'. And the perceived utility of discourse is located in the capacity to express oneself and give an account of oneself. Where Beckett's characters are often vagrant in a basic physical sense, they also relate the experience of one whose realm - or lack - of domicile extends to the psyche. Psychic vagrancy, or vagrancy of identity, enjoys and suffers exactly the same judgements and conditions that accrue to the tramp or the new-age trav eller, but often attracts the attribution of insanity. The incident of identity's relapse from locality, and following on that the eventual non-existence of ego-identity, decomposes the metaphorical relationship between body, location, space, territory, enclosure, incarnation, self and selfhood. In For to End Yet Again Beckett called that relationship one of "habitativity" (1995, 245). In the language of analogy and imagination, existence in the body is equivalent to domicile, belonging in a place, and being somebody. Being nobody is belonging to no place. Kathleen Raine writes of the dead: