It was .... and .... it was not so


go multiple hearts return your senders till next

'It is not simply linguistic, lexical, or even syntactic transformations that
determine the importance of a true semiotic translation but the opposite.'

multiple heart return your sender next

'Crazy talk is not enough.'

'In each case we must judge whether what we see
is an adaptation of an old semiotic, a new variety of a particular mixed
semiotic, or the process of creation of an as yet unknown regime.'

'For example,
it is relatively easy to stop saying "I," but that does not mean that you
have gotten away from the regime of subjectification;'

(All of which the schizo sums
up by saying: they're fucking me over again. "I won't say / any more, I'll never
utter the word again; it's just too damn stupid. Every time I hear it, I'll use the
third person instead, if I happen to remember to. If it amuses them. And it won't
make one bit of difference."26 And if he does chance to utter the word I again,
that won't make any difference either. He is too far removed from these problems,
too far past them. /ao p23)

Conversely, you can
keep on saying "I," just for kicks, and already be in another regime in which

ultiple eart turn our sender next (tendernextest)

'Signifiance and interpretation
are so thick-skinned, they form such a sticky mixture with subjectification,
that it is easy to believe that you are outside them when you

'People sometimes denounce interpretation

upon the subject, which continues to nourish itself on it in order to survive .'

_______________________________And it might be so and
it was and was not ~ .