Regnabo, Regno, Regnavi, Sum sine regno: the letter is Empirical- it is EmpiReal: there is no silence to the drive, unless one cannot hear very well- a true gift for an analyst to grasp the double image of the object whose binary functions can either orient to desire or to jouissance, which is not alone and not mystical, but with the company of the Other: and because the tachyon, that letter carrying the lights and the letter’s own voice, truly beyond the enlightenment of the imaginary and the image, onto this moving target that moves towards the Βίος of the Heraclitean bow and not in elliptic paradoxes, what is the place of activity of a Cause of desire, which is not a position, is the identification with the object, that which causes desire, not the symptom∙ that my dear unfaithful Thomas, trapped into the circle and the repetition of a meaning yet with the explanations of the Other, locates the kinesis of the unconscious onto the source of the drive and not its tip.
And when the object itself and not its gloominess con-courses the subject, it is not from the phallus that one offers the gift of belief to an axiom of language, but to the letter that is unparticular inflowing the realm that it is not even uncanny, an EmpyReal to which many an analyst shall be converted into the scale invariant to what can be playacted by a monotonous and not less banausic mouth, that estuary of air of the he who is to speak of ontology with its counterpart, which is deontology, as ethic: and, yet, the candor of the practice is not even that, for, it is a scale invariant without momentum and mass to whose attribute, he, who is the leader of the Arian tribe, shall plead guilty about its musicality, when, in fact himself does not know how to play the piano with the phalanges of the handyman- for intellectuality cannot not offer the prerequisites of the act upon life, which is not a given but can be a creative prosopopoeia, a plasma on its own right, not the subject solicituded within and around the structure.
And, if the feet which stand upon a ground dehumidifying an apotheosis, relying to the calumniatory question of sarcasm, of the Where do I start, themselves depict that this deportment of perambulation begins from the matters which are issues of the earth, from that anything forms, debarring that first breath and the Plasmatic appearance of the unconscious in its elemental states of corporeality of a foaming at mouth journeying from the ionized violence of that which is limited by time∙ that is the Γράθμα where the double of the letter has melted at the tip of the tongue and the Γ has passed through the threshold of metousiosis and has been breathed into a Θ, and not into the halacha of the Jewish law, whose articulation appears to be a letter, to which discourse offers a tube of air present to the scale invariance of the trinity of spatial symmetry, the subject’s reflection, interpretation and rotation: to these the Letter cannot move∙ semiosis and use but not be a Cause∙ and when the object changes positions within the discourse and the body, it is because the subject hides the Parousia of the breathing letters as the so called chameleon assumes the formula of a percolated scalar infinitesimal syllabary with a non-linear interaction to one another since it uses the signifier in resembling a dues ex machine and fools the analyst who thinks he hears very well when he tones his immaculate ear to grasp the harmony of the signifiers, in the same manner that the Ousia of the Aristotelian theories, has been conceived in the time that it was believed the earth was flat- not the Das Ding and neither the subject- leave aside the Ergon∙ and he who is a grand piano thespian, and certainly knows about notes and master signifiers, himself not a master, could have testified in a court of law that the values of the letters is the Niente when the diminuendo has finished, and to where the dark energy which is homousian to the Ousia but not to the breath, an entelechy including the psychoanalytic Act, passageways towards this Everything, which is not simply Real but Apeiron.
And here is the question, which is a true mystery, and not a surprise: how does the psychoanalyst intervene on a structure that is plasma? Ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ∙ yes- it is true, but besides the Logos- which is what is unmoved and traps the ear of the analyst into a towards the No, and not towards the conduction of the troparion of the προς-ευχή: that is the orientation of the Kinesis towards desire and the answer to the enigma from where do I start.
