Federico Buono

The Depersonalization of the Individual

‘Body coexistent in an existence with a presence’

May 09, 2012

Retrieved on June 6, 2012 from 325.nostate.net

Published by Edizioni Cerbero

‘The divine is the cause of god, the human is the cause of man. My cause is neither divine nor human, neither the truth nor the good, neither the right nor freedom etc, but it is only what belongs to me, and it is not a general cause but a unique one, as I myself am unique too. There is nothing above me!’

‘I placed my cause on the nothingness’ The Ego and its Own M. Stirner

Through the concentric and concentration camp-like chain mails of the moral-judicial monster and of disabling annihilation of the individual a pre-planned life is overcome by detriment in an existence in the ‘free’ cages of human society, where to be programmed to failure determines the ‘instant’.

It annihilates the trajectories of life attracted by the ‘pale sun’ of existence, in the introjections of the analysed being, and makes the contours faint like threads that can shortly burn, if touched, given back to life itself by thin certitude.

Limpid visions given by marginal aspects are a ‘margin’ that, rather muffled way, explores a world made by precise schematic and logic elaboration, in which the enumeration of repetitive gestures forms and assimilates the coexistent body in a psycho-somatic absorption.

A ‘step’ into the margin delineates and deforms a correlation of the psyche in a vision of the body.

A ‘breathless breath’ as an attitudinal of a look at a wide horizon.

In the belly of the moral judicial monster, the erection of the form ‘defendant’ unravels in an extension of sudden stratification of the redemptive trajectory of programmatic subordination.

Cells are the experience of an empty imaginative memory of a life, which is chosen sometimes and expiated from time to time.

Depersonalization occurs hand in hand with the assimilation of the essence of the ‘prisoner body’ in its ordinary doctrines for the keeping of power in the cells of redemption.

The ‘revolt’ of an individual is assimilated and engulfed in the intricate presentation of events that dissemble the pivot and essence of its extensive singularity.

The existence of the cells of redemption represents the disentanglement of events taking on speculative intents in search of all-comprehensive doctrines of the not-being an individual.

The ‘form-defendant’ is depersonalization carried out in countless synthesises of ramifications through a vision in the shape of a ‘wolf’s mouth’.

The stratified form of sub-induced estrangement produces the anaesthetisation of derivative forms with space-time occlusions.

‘Time’ is like an experiment of jurisprudential conformation in the ravines of the cells of redemption.

As events given by structural-programmatic dispositions pass by, an ‘overcoming’ occurs, the overcoming through a time that is temporality of the event in a concentric form and correlation of a correlated ‘wait’.

The wait is a definite time, where the blunting of an obstruction in the construction of the definition can be found.

The wait delineates and assimilates the gestures that are predisposed in the alienation of a definitely waiting ‘something’.

Waiting ‘something’ is subjected and orientated in a disability of the wait itself.

The wait becomes a memorandum of modifying gestures as a given wait conformed to the gestures is obtained while the being waiting for ‘something’ in a modified way is in wait.

This ‘something’ is the aspiration to obtain a thing from ‘somebody’, a thing which is also obtaining a wait.

Being in wait is being in a disabling obtaining of the ‘something’, which waits for the ‘someone’ to introduce itself while waiting to obtain.

After the wait, the obtaining represents the being engulfed in the ‘prisoner body’, waiting to obtain the role of ‘defendant’ itself.

The attestation of wanting to be something which goes beyond being an individual is also obtaining that ‘somebody’ is there, somebody which wants any given thing to be a frustration of any gesture of revolt, so that total alienation of one’s own ‘being’ is achieved in the cells of redemption.

Depersonalization is not only a consequential datum but also intrinsic introjections of the depersonalized being, in the attestation of having achieved consequentiality.

The being decomposed in an organic composition has minimally wanted to achieve that ‘something’, which gave to the act of depersonalization its annihilating the singular existence of the individual.

‘Time’ is a waited event in the reconstruction of the given events, which become an intrinsic juxtaposition of the being received in a definite moment.

Schemes delineate the signs of a supposition, which the divergence of a given ‘time’ makes a firm and certain sign.

Being marginalized poses the juxtaposition as a continuous flow in the wait for a being that is definitely given.

‘All propositions express the idea of a relationship of commensuration between the rule and what that is regulated by the law; but if we do not consider the interest and evaluation, this relationship between the condition and the one who is being conditioned and the corresponding normative proposition present themselves in the form of subsisting or non subsisting.’ [1]

This ‘not all’ means to frustrate all researches that experiments with on the one side a give depersonalization and on the other the way and methods of our ability to break out the alienating fibres in a prison circuit and in the cells and yards of redemption.

But is there or not the chance to be able to break out something, even if minimal?

And this breaking out must or must not be analysed through a research inside the recondite existential ravines in dark cells, which are pregnant with a bad smelling inhalation of a cadaverous transposition of being an individual?

In a continuous research for the countless forms of systematic dispositions-within of the being, to write about all this means to succeed, minimally, to searching for the meaning of the structures of power in human society.

Here human society is intended not as a ethical and demo-centric power but as the essence of the human being, in its countless facets in a composed disposition of decomposable sub-ordinariness to the massification of society itself.

But let’s go back to the main pivot of this exploration and of the questions that can’t have a precise answer: and they do not obtain anything that is an effective answer.

In the cold and damp cells, as they are cold and dump, even when the heat is like the presence of Cerberus in the Hades, the presence-absence of being present experiences the absence of the presence of something, which is the correspondence of determination of the presence of an experience of the events in a life of atonement.

In jumping through an ‘expectorating’ of oneself, there is an interpenetration of the constant exploration of what belongs to one’s own self, in the determination of hiding one’s own atonement.

A constant exile of one’s own self is the expression of a falsification of being something which is more than an absence.

Interpenetration of the absent absence.

Absence is not being there but being something in the daily life and struggle for survival, but absence is not there when not being there is something that looks for someone, in search of the Self-something in a planned and falsified being something as having being someone in an extensive and impendent effect.

The spreading of ‘expectorating’ of oneself is the expression of the terms of a report of an explicit and extensive conduct while hiding a planned impeding effect in one’s own ‘prisoner body’.

Channelizing is jumping through a living depersonalization.

It is the absent being waiting for something, of achieving that something in constant aspiration and atonement and in a constant flow of emotional expedients, extraneous to oneself.

Is or is not the expedient the achieving of something?

The impeding jargon goes back to the mystifications of the objective equalization of the present being; it breathes the disgusting annihilation in the amorphous form of spirals that lie down inside the composed walls by a presence at the limit of decomposition.

The ‘bars’ concealing the desire of individual revolt exist as an existence of a presence of fixed and unchanging existent, which however is changeable.

The existence of planning forms in flatness implies the change of the ‘prisoner body’ in movement inside the essence of the nucleus of the planned form in a motionless presence, yet it moves, while the absent being is waiting something, which can be a change of the moving form, of the existent existence or of the existence of the ‘prisoner body’.

This transfiguration transfuses the emotional-directional drives of the desire to obtain ‘someone’ and ‘something’ as an appropriation of the form of the ‘prisoner body’.

The being that moves at the presence of an absence changes the presence into the very essence of an impeding predication of the absent being in search of ‘something’, in the achievement because what has to be given has to be given and received by the applicant in something, to someone, that is already receiving in the achievement of the amorphous form.

In the darkness and dampness of the cold cells of redemption, the presence of a ‘fixed’ existent promises subordination to a motionless existent.

One moves towards permeating and interlocking the experience of being oneself in an impeding life, where the flow of events stretches one’s dreams of revolt in flatness.

The presence-absence of the existent in a procedure of a program is a rule of conduct, which starts from a datum formalizing the instant.

The ‘prisoner body’ recognizes the very existence as if it was the procedure of an amorphous solemn walk of the presence, in an absence that widens and amplifies the terms of achievement of the meaning of being in anchorite. [2]

The still of an instantaneous life gives countless deformed visions, which are affected by the presence-absence of the absent being.

Like presence, the existent also blocks any instant in a mono-thematic approach to the ‘bars’.

Being oneself, having being oneself, being present and absent in front of a presence, which is the instant in a still, where the presence brings about lines of mutuation and metamorphosis while achieving a presence-absence and the being conforms itself and does not conforms itself at the same time.

When ‘time’ is flow of events in the presence, motionless, which presents itself as a wait in the ‘prisoner body’, as something of the presence-absence in a mobile and vague recurrence of expedients of expectorating oneself.

In a cold and dark cell the presence is existence in an affirmation of redemption?

The gaze turns into a motionless form like Noesis.

Individuating and perceiving the absent presence and its motionless form, which is also fixed and determined and where the gaze looks, means to fix the marginality of one’s own absent being and turn –in a way or another – to a well defined point, which is definitely ‘given’, even if in complete transformation, in the forms and deformations of composed structures that give the ‘gaze’.

As a result, a penetration occurs into the motionless composed form in an attempt at penetrating this limit, not looking ‘beyond’ but observing that motionless composed form as something fixed, a sign of thought going ‘beyond’, but while looking the ‘seeing eye’ is accomplished.

The very limit of a derivation of depersonalizing decomposition.

‘Before and after, a negotiator must make the counterpart notice the information because he cannot help presenting his case and discuss the solutions. But he will have a huge advantage if the other part exposes his situation first.’ [3]

Writing about the psycho-achieving aspects of the ‘prisoner body’ is like moving in the search of the lost part of one’s movement as a single; and the formal datum, an anaesthetic act of being an individual, is like giving a gaze.

Besides the substantial peregrinations of those who end up inside the moral judicial monster, where the precluding one is in contrast to a believed equalization, the complex and complementary ramification occurs, and it refers to the objectivity of the power of annihilation of oneself.

If the depersonalizing effect is not included in theme ‘sentence’, that is like to say that in the cells and yards of redemption free will is ongoing, which later nullifies itself in the fact that is ‘already’ a ‘defendant-form’.

The annihilating complexity permeating the moral judicial monster leads to the need to be more incisive when writing about the permeated complex and sinking all formal ‘data’ into an easy conclusion of the opposite, of a friend and an enemy, which the Anarchist-Ego-Nihilism denies and trying to cut all forms of absolute concept of adducted morality like a stabilizer of formal data.

The corresponding role of being prisoner does not occur at all times, a role of opposition, on the ‘guard’, but it must be seen again in front of an examination inside a new shape of negation of the opposite.

A role can correspond, if it is corresponded to the moralizing rules of the corresponding leading role.

To have and to be ‘leading role’ delineates parameters of absoluteness of the corresponding roles.

Now we can take a step forward in the research here exposed, and write about a corresponding assonance in taking roles, which makes all ‘singular powers’ normal, but which also affects the deduced (and induced) depersonalized surrender.

The fulfilment of an assumption of the ‘form-prisoner’ makes and absorbs all fibres of being one’s own self.

To be an individual for oneself.

The fulfilment of one’s leading role it is not only to be someone who wants something and obtains it by the use of one’s impact force.

The fulfilment occurs in the centralization of being oneself subject in a compression of the being induced and ‘rendered’ in a depersonalized way.

The ‘leading role’ is to portray oneself as a complement of being something. Not anything but one’s will to achieve one’s role, which must lead one’s being like something that must and want to obtain a role in being something asking someone for the attainment of the corresponding ‘Being’.

In this the concealment occurs in an impeding and prostrating form, in an imaginary request of equalization in flatness.

To obtain something in a certain way is not to obtain because this ‘something’ is the reification of the being oneself subject, in a deducible minimum attainment and giving the maximum achievement in a surrender becoming depersonalized.

The compression of the being in a ‘prisoner form’ is the certificate of the examination carried out, aiming to consolidate the reification and not the attainment of something, but receiving something, which is minimum but it is also nothingness for the most part.

The ‘nothingness for the most part’ does not demonstrate the prominent emerging of an Egocentric and singular force, but the essence of the role one has given to oneself.

However, to establish a ‘leading role’ is ‘already’ to give oneself something, an annihilating centric form; and as it is so, the presence of the absence is the presence of an annihilating void of the being oneself subject.

Prostrating oneself in order to achieve this role leads to nullifying any fibre of individual resistance and delineating the joint form in an impeding movement, in being ‘something’ and nothing more than nothing less.

The aspiration to a resolution decriminalizes, in a deprecating act, any determination to insurgency in the dark and cold cells of redemption like a single volitional being.

Resistance becomes atrocious for those who fight knowing they can succumb at any time because one’s radical movement in Egotism is completely nullified at any second in the gnawing of the depersonalizing form. Even the refusal of a ‘leading role’ and of any role disposed in the organization chart in the moral judicial monster is still to struggle against the infecting invasion of a depersonalized surrender.

‘The person of the accuser, no matter their name or assignment, is absolutely necessary for the judgement: as innocence is the natural state and common condition of all citizens, there can be no doubt or investigation concerning the exceptional quality of being guilty. And the necessity of the affirmation leads to the necessity of someone who affirms.’ [4]

Depersonalization penetrates deeply and establishes a link of ramification and completion of the objectivity of the dark and fetid cells, which change in a vision that widens, compresses, diversifies, intensifies, gives and takes away the ‘prisoner body’.

In the cells of redemption the structural forms explicit themselves in a deconstruction of their volitional acts.

It is not ‘being’ but it is being ‘anything’, a something that is presence.

In narrow spaces, with inhalations of cadaverous stench predicting the act of depersonalization, the mutations of the motionless form that modifies itself produce instants of decomposed mnemonic visualization.

The pivot in which the smell of cadaverous form is strong and irresistible intensifies in the systematic anaesthetization of the development of given events that conform to the daily nightmare.

The occluded space-time-limit incessantly expresses signs of decomposition in the complex moral judicial monster and in the exposition of the producing effects.

Emptiness comes back in exolicit dispositions of memorandum in an intricate and speculative ‘prisone form’.

The ‘key’ implies the ‘prisoner form’ and its implicit essence in an effect that comes back, deduces and seduces, and expresses the significant surrender and the rendition of this ‘surrender’.

The significant intro-composition promises spirals of falsifying observation.

In the obstruction of a logical scheme, the opening and closing becomes the manifesto of a programmatic examination, which extends the pivot of its effluxes, to the ‘prisoner body’, in a conformation that changes the bet of the signs in the essence of its ‘principle’.

The essence produces the introspection in the sign-effect, in the disposition of the composition of the effect, which wants that the disposed ‘leading role’ emerges in the assimilation of the ‘principle’, which is a compromising and compressed comprehension of the essence of the ‘key’-order, which amplifies the mono-system of the events in methodical and schematic induction.

The essence of the falsification of the composition in the disposition is the prodrome establishment of the penetration of the ‘principle’ of the ‘key’.

The ‘principle’ becomes a ritualistic symbol, where the redemption deposes the principle of the very essence of procedural power.

The proclamation becomes the effect of the significance of the ritualistic symbol.

The penetration is the contraction of the signs in a relaxation of the ‘leading role’; and in a programmatic act it is assimilated by the essence of the ‘key’.

In the darkness of a cold and damp cell, what kind of depersonalizing experience is that of the sound of the keys?

Is that a ‘return’ or a ‘repetition’?

Is or is not the material of the keys the beginning of a ‘prisoner form’?

The returned logical form is the assumption of a subjection of the unloading of events, which form again the symptom in the cells of redemption.

The ‘sound’ in an impeding exposition makes the contours clear, but not the ‘contour’, which remains the effect given and wanted by the necessity of a ‘leading role’, which obtains the wanted, as it does not want to obtain the corresponding giving the ‘wanted’, something that must be a ‘saying’.

Obtaining is ‘not wanting’ in the opposed confrontation, as ‘giving’ is a given and definite receiver.

The willy-nilly wanting expresses nothing if not the ‘giving’ the beginning of the ‘sound’ of the keys, the corresponding ‘leading role’ in an assumption of correlation between a given wanting that is given by the giving, and a wanting that is not given by the giving.

Is not wanting the expression of wanting a corresponding wanted ‘leading role’?

The significant signs of not wanting express and extend the question: is the ‘prisoner form’ a not wanting that wants?

Is the definition given in a systematic introspection inside the intrinsic significance of the wanting that does not want?

The organic disposition in the dark and damp and fetid cells of decomposed redemption promises the symbolic extrapolation of the principle of the significance of the wanting that does not want, but the essence remains in a bottom of putrid stagnation, whose smell attires and intensifies the volitional act of understanding the essence, but it does not predict anything that is not a wanting and recognizing the putrid, stagnant and imaginary inhalation.

The wanting that does not want assumes now the shape of a putrid ascension in a rite with a despicable smell.

Is the ‘key’ the essence of the wanting that does not want or is it the wanting that does not want?

‘If, as we usually do in a spontaneous way when we talk about expressions, we first limit ourselves to those expressions that serve the living dialogue, the concept of signal seems to have a wider extension than the concept of expression. Not for this it is a genre in relation with the content. The meaning is not a sort of being a sign, intended as indication. Its extension is more restricted for the sole reason that the meaning in the communicative speech is always intertwined in a certain relation with the being a signal, and the latter is at the base of a wider concept because it can also appear without this intertwining.’ [5]

Sparks of lucid madness interpose at any time the adumbration of what is being experienced, where time does not move anything that is not a concatenation of normal and centric events, but in a deposed and decomposable disposition.

The ‘key’ is the sound given to the decomposable conformation of the interactions of the methodological structures intrinsic to the ‘prisoner body’.

Writing this means to sink the Ego-Nihilist blade: in the ‘prisoner body’ and in its assumption of a ‘leading role’ and nullifying any singular peculiarity.

The question is: how to annihilate the emergence of a composed form of depersonalization and of its annihilating advancement?

The answer leads to nothing without knocking down the door of one’s self, if not the fall into the alignment of the ‘prisoner form’ to something more than a corresponding ‘leading role’.

There is no effective answer to the question because one does not want to obtain but to annihilate human society.

In its countless ramifications and predispositions as it formulates the rules of smoothing any singular peculiarity.

In the constant and endless research, without any question coming to the ‘absolute’ we have to ask: what is the depersonalizing ‘substance’ that nests in the recondite ravines of the putrid cells of redemption?

‘God and humanity have placed their cause on nothingness, on nothingness and on themselves. I want to place my cause on myself too, because I, like God, am the nothingness of all the rest and for me I am my all, I am the Ego as unique.’ [6]

[1] ‘Theoretical Disciplines as Foundations of Normative Disciplines’, ‘Logical Researches’ E. Husserl.

[2] An ‘anchorite’ is a religious man who lives in solitude fasting and preying.

[3] ‘Listen, do not speak’, ‘A guide to techniques of negotiation’ J. Winkler.

[4] ‘Program of course of criminal law’ F. Carrara.

[5] ‘Double sense of the term “sign”’ ‘Logical researches’ E. Husserl.

[6] ‘I placed my cause on nothingness’ ‘The Ego and its Own’ Max Stirner.