Abutting Narratives Interjecting: Speech As A Self-Consuming Act

Like one’s granma used to utter: Anyone in need for style-crampin?

Damn you are noT!!!

No, no, not that…

We are noT robozombiesz!!!

Sure, not…

Olrajt!!!

Thanks. Like may ye orange glow of ye purple groove rule, for fuck’s sake!

Like fuck!!!

Thanks. Lemmie share a couple of quandaries, perplexities, and / or concerns:

Key words: Notion, Essence, essence, lotion, the form, ---ism, CON-sc-IO-u-sness, Reason, San & Ti, at once, war, motion, slow, flux, in-itself / object / for-itself, ciao, bella, hello, Dapoltri!!!

Now, before you start, lemmie ask you from which perspective do you utter these syntaxiod strings?

To that question to answer is impossible. For a simple reason, which is that whatever I say, the moment I finalize the statement, it, at once, becomes untrue.

How can you say that?

By virtue of having memory of it.

Memory is nothing but history.

So is the author . And the orator, innit?

The question just asked belongs in the era when people will have used those notions. As is evident from my key words list and my vocabulary by and large, they are not part of my conceptual apparatus. Nor are those that I just deployed in order to respond to the comment.

If so, your narrative prevails solely due to its basing itself on the assumption of the perpetual need of words-in-conflict.

Dare I say that consciousnesses, more than words, is what I see as ceaselessly confronting. That I imagine to be a solid foundation for the formation of a cultural force united against words of whatever valences.

If so, what is to be imagined outside the battlefield?

From the perspective of minds in conflict, that either does not matter or is to demonstrate itself once the perpetual struggle is over.

What are you confronting?

Essentially, anything that can possibly cross paths of my reasonably mindful consciousness.

Like this?

Or that, as long as it appears for-itself to my slowly transforming words in-itself …

But, does it matter?

Of course.

How can you claim that when you are still wrestling against the verbal content being shot from the source called my consciousness in the direction of your reason?

Because while I theorize, I make statements that are and are not valid.

That makes manifest a dual character of your theoretical apparatus: (1) It clearly shows instantaneity in its utmost, deceitful superficiality; (2) It most definitely contradicts the previous showing the power of the immediacy of self-consumption.

It proves the claims both wrong and / or right, all the while revealing the dialogue at its most dialogical.

Dapoltri.