NOTES on ENVELOPES
_________________________________
ENVELOPE 1
_________________________________
At this point we may object (“pardon me!”). For to reduce the case, be it
By the by as it be be as it
as the maybe case may be as that the case of ladies and gentlemen; of the object and this supposed subject (“so-called!”) to a loanblend liqueur of partiality that while not strictly speaking aimless (without a direct object) is perhaps nevertheless not without subjectunamines. However, the subject that is finally in question there, we have merely reduced to a slipset bibimbaptism’d as doe radii brim plinthix run rarety miled, partially odorous slipset of suberozspringlit foolsfossil of instances of varying degrees to a substance of impressionability a set ordered in partiality
Partiality is not without a subset.
However, the subject that is finally in question there, we have merely reduced to impressionable substance, an irresolute. Thus substanceless substance.
Partiality is not without a subject.
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 2
_________________________________
Thus on the one hand a world of sometimes dormant other times ploritrasting onslaught of a determeriatised, swarm-like proliferasion of partial substances — the passion of the object — that darts around a generalised “cortex” which a….. more than sensorial ganglions of impressional substance nervous fibres that, being essentially sensorial anyway, of a suscepionly matrix to the partialities which ???
ploriferosion
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 3
____________________________
“objected” to by the liotigoenous =LITIGEOUS image of the object — the ego—
another way of __ it will be the partial object (not partial “to” anything direct) become “subjected” to the objection of the subject
the final question of the subject being whether in the end it is a subject, an object, or indeed neither or indeed both.
For to say that this subject “object’s” is clearly not to take the targeted as the behaviour of partial behaviours of objects as a direct object.
For to say that this subject “objects” to something objectionable in the object is clearly not to say that it is targeting the object but rather what is objectionable about it. And what is objectionable about it is that it objectifies the subject (makes it into an object) who in protest to this objectification by means of the statement makes an object of itself.
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 4
_________________________________
I do not “object” the other in so far as my objection is carried by the intransitive verb.* When I resist their advances on the contrary, it is the advances of the partial object which stand to make a subject of me — this that
*Thus I object to the other. The words are in effect ‘I object to, in the direction of the object’. Thus the object is the outcome of the objection. It is the fate of the subject to object, insofar as the grammatical subject exists within a fundamentally auto-plastic language. This auto-plasticity being that which allows / a verb to be heard as reflexive.
who, paradoxically, was perhaps a subject in the moment precisely when pronouncing that “I OBJECT” (to an objective partiality to exploit the impressionable)
LEGISLATED
when the objection was pronounced “I OBJECT” effectively.
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 5
_________________________________
Giving the subject the declarative statement “I OBJECT” effectively making the subject the only real candidate for the place gesture of protest yeild to its own rejection.. in sofar as it is in fact the subject itself which direct object of its objection to being.
thus the subject “OBJECTS” to become all the more an object.
In the same manner in a game of charades
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 6
_________________________________
Or a pragmatic specifies “I RUN” when a subject giving the clue for “ASSETS” states “I LIQUIFY” or in another instance of a game of charades being played against a computer this time with self discriminative the clue “I RUN”
Note we are not saving that the subject OBJECTS to becoming an object. Of course he OBJECTS TO THIS. It is after all his INHUMAN TREATMENT at the hands of the object
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 6S
_________________________________
Of all the hypertrophic reproductions born by the hostage situation of speech. The something? of signs in seduction, the total compatibilisation of the subject to input by the object constitutes a fresh level of a root or protolanguage. Disemboweled impartiality.
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 7
_________________________________
which if it is partial “too” anything we certainly don’t know what it is. It may be non to discredit the object on the basis of its inconsistency which maybe parsed framed as stupidity, or otherwise reflexively dumb luck but it is an acute apprehension of the subject mapping acute its turning of the tables
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 8
_________________________________
results of the wasteland that with suspicion from the subjects regular seduction by the object
A Semblance does appear, in ?, in a vagueness regarding which it can be said that it is curious that this ◻︎◻︎◻︎◻︎◻︎ should not vagueness invoke my curiosity awaken beyond what is perhaps satisfied of it though appears more under
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 9
_________________________________
the lights of a wall to know and with caring degrees of desperation and a subjective destination which has become fairly routine. Encounters with truth are never in the order of Jouissance taking possession of the ???? causing it to ware light from an incessant labour and the light pollution of capital
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 10
_________________________________
One has to wonder capitalistic artifice with its defaulting to “neurotic” autopilot and then a far less / more (object says more) assured or perhaps explored return to analysis interests
One has to wonder is capitalistic artifice with its defaulting tune
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 11
_________________________________
So, for starters, in what version of charades is it the aim of those whose turn communicate obstruct of clues further disguise the identity of ???
as to what they’re to say not permitted???
(we might suppose the games rules require the to keep ?? about)
sleepiness overcomes me only in certain moments while common feature I
Ontic I suspect mediates through the substitution a image of a lower case for the psychotic approximation
So I commonfeature
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 12
_________________________________
to the kn0wlege of the simulacrum — a knowledge which is certainly placed in the charge of the only persona/entity or “pother” dasein deemed worthy
In a predominately panic pose neurotically concretised subject —
thus with the one exception of the games ??? rule that disallows speech to form of communication by which one would
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 13
_________________________________
call the object directly by the name *(the string go Chars) which the guesser by which the guesser is to apprehend the gesticulations of this isody, (suppose to know), that ??? before him
It is perhaps inevitable that charades will ??? this toiling in the absurdity in this humour to confront knowledge
_________________________________
ENVEOLOPE 14
_________________________________
on each side of the port…
epitome
epistemology
worse common feature iOS suddenly hitting a wall one or other hits it as though they didn’t see it coming
#object #heresy #hoard