u/finiannn

Time is out of joint, time is unhinged. The hinges are the axis on which the door turns. The hinge, Cardo, indicates the subordination of time to precise cardinal points, through which the periodic movements it measures pass. As long as time remains on its hinges, it is subordinated to extensive movement; it is the measure of movement, its interval or number. This characteristic of ancient philosophy has often been emphasized: the subordination of time to the circular movement of the world as the turning Door, a revolving door, a labyrinth opening onto its eternal origin. It will entail an entire hierarchization of movements according to their proximity to the Eternal, according to their necessity, their perfection, their uniformity, their rotation, their composite spirals, their particular axes and doors, and the numbers of Time that correspond to them. Time no doubt tends to free itself when the movement it measures itself becomes increasingly aberrant or derived [dérivé], marked by material, meteorological, and terrestrial contingencies; but this is a downward tendency that still depends on the adventures of movement. Time thus remains subordinate to what, in movement, is both originary and derived- delueze.

Time being out of joint is the the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic *not working so well*. ''through which the periodic movements it measures pass.''— this is how measurements have a will-of, as in, their aspect of intending-to is not successful because its not exactly a rare case of things; it is the only opportunity if it is how it seems, but, meaning that the possibility of the movements is still what is nearest— what is closer to close range; a nearing towards a likelihood without the *prominence* of likelihood, this is exactly the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic, the promise of both the fortunate and unfortunate isn't a promise it is towards would could be possibly said about it, that's why it doesn't collapse or comply, but it doesn't keep going on, you can definitely say what you like about both the fortunate and the unfortunate; and if there is vagueness in that it is coming from the end of a large majority, this is the same for time being out of joint— time being out of joint is the partiality of committing to a partiality, your only left with a particular quality or a very good effort, this is why it is also the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic working, if the fortunate-unfortunate dynamic working weren't to mean something else entirely and instead the entirety of what could be said since— the end of of a large majority.

Tiredness is the exact amount, in as far as it it is within situations that don’t “call for”; the exact amount is a much needed affect. The sameness of exhaustion to tiredness isn’t sameness, it is a partiality submitting, thus, tiredness is there for it all, but, therefore there is not exhaustion getting its amends too, only towards separate attention getting an occasion— not an occasional interest because, interests are interests (we know this, if needed) tiredness is different from exhaustion but not indubitably in essence, just the way an interest can find or come to terms. If tiredness is much different from exhaustion it is because it is not exhibited, willingly so or not, if it is not exhibited it is still an audition ,so exhaustion and tiredness being similar is because that’s what simply brings the two together; a togetherness as a mere result or different sort of reflection.

if combat is something it is because things stop and start, or even is partial to ''stopping and starting'' , stopping and starting, meaning that, if there is an excess in the stopping and starting it is not a good part it is an ever leading promise to how much things go on, if they do. In the context of combat, stopping and starting is not the promise of an alibi, because the promise already comes from combat; an inexactitude *almost* worth mentioning. The fact of the combat coming is in regarded-to company rather than good company as good company is only regarded. Combat is not how we make of it but it is possible to make something out of it, as in, possibilities *arise*, the possibilities arising are a sign of something in common, the commonness being in order with a reach; they are not advisable by chaos, they are as they happen, there is no ''informational guideline'' only a sorting not necessarily withstanding. Combat is the ''certain approach'' without the fluff of everything included; everything is included but everything elsewhere has its amends too. Combat is how one could see it, or better yet, how one couldn't necessarily see it.

Absurdism, what is this? Especially now that it is especially important without a notoriety for a difference— “the talk about Albert Camus” , firstly it is inconsequential that talking is about an author; people talk about many things, so to talk about an author isn’t a separate thing is is a desperate thing— intensity here; how you want it to be. Secondly to frame someone as something even if it’s positive (e.g., absurd) is still notable in that it’s not necessarily negative; the positivity comes from throughout the course of things; that is context not absurdity though, as in, at best it is a very positive kind of thought or even that which is lost without something else. Albert Camus may have had some words but for the reaction to be “in respect of Albert Camus” is not *exactly* different

People describe Becketts work as “the inescapability of language” , this is a right description and it describes fully what it is, which is a problem, because for Beckett problems arise. Because of the simple wording in worstward ho there are no problems unless they appear or even seem that way as the words he uses could be described as “just there” or “being just there” , being that, to begin with they are already there. An example of a problem arising in worstward ho, is the best most example; the whole text. Every sentence *goes through avoidance* , every sentence is not a matter of avoidance or avoidance as a method, simply because, he’s, again, using simple wording so there is nothing left to avoid besides the wording, but with nothing left to avoid there is too much to avoid because there is evidence (the simple wording), in other words, he used all there was left but that was still too much left so there is always something left. So with this,the description “inescapability of language” could make sense, but that description as something that is left is definitely a push, also, it is simply not needed, he already *did it* , and not even in another way, basically, he made “same same but different” a useful response.