each term here escapes a friction
(ie written language fails to reflect or represent thoughts as much as words operate as reminders of stuff that can never come shared but offer a certain range made of approximations and sensations?)
each grammar lives as a push from sensations converted with frictions into terms and manners that spill into various commons
(ie the sequence in english may translate in other languages as english in sequence – and indeed may Mean, allude to a common aim, however both terms like “in” and the order/sequence have their own ways of pushing escaped frictions. indeed
we can notice that grammar offers another kind of a friction for a sensation we might let into the common?)
words and their grammars through an intelligence of frictive biases – an exit to make they
(ie the pain that one may experience when denied their Voice – one way or another – is it not akin to the discomforts and pains we may get through constipation? The exit is yet to be ready and yet to feel safe and yet to open up and yet bodies requires an exit for their nourishing sensations? hence, when a hold is ordered, imposed, inflicted, obeyed in one manner or another – has a life waiting to explode? Indeed, an explosion can not operate without an exit – where the ex comes in..?)
on the face of it, the text has yet to point something refreshingly new let alone exiting. to prove that, all one needs to do is a bit of a look around for philosophers of language, writers reflecting on language, psychologists of language and possibly feel one’s self authentically.
Therefore, i’d like to point at something that might not come very evident, the loss of a singular object here.
ie the meta language from pushing, escaping and exits which, through it’s nature – sponteniously evades (rather than negates)
a conceptualization without the very concept-capture, failling to account for how exits push escapes pushing exits exit escape push escaping exiting pushing?