Gratitude for aforesaid posed doubt :

The assumption that 'complex' word usage implies unreadability [what does it mean to understand? 'Is' 'the' mediation betwixt understanding & reading mutual, inchoate, exclusive? Do 'we' understand the familiar, the Others in 'our' lives? Isn't peculiarity a most affective feeling relation to the Other in 'ourself'?] to the mode of perception of a non-being (see 'conclusion') is mistaken, henceforth [redacted 'I'] will outline why: semiotics – words are referent signs containing information that are in endless circularity; the 'traced categories' of interrelations cannot be universally operative –does not subsume towards a meaning-'in'-avowal, an exact language ('private-non-private'); 'it' 'is' reflexively unique to 'me' in a historical rule-set nomenclature of grammar/tense/meaning/implication/space-time/continuity/dualism; contemplate neglected dialectics (medieval phrasing exemplarily unintelligible for its simplicity)-Cantonese/Yue/'Han' contrastingly have many higher possibilities of exponentiational combination yet #1 in usage inc. variants, with their own modes of reference/position/systematized theory.

Regarding ’’word pornography’’ (implied referent ‘’not saying that's the case here’’ rendered irrelevant by its abeyance), such alienation from your cogitative angular titled horizontality (focus of the modern syuzjet, a 'horizon of becoming', linearity –dominance of 'the' line/arrow of 'time'/directedness/plain); symbolism of 'the' iconographic eye/eagle/extended distance, conducive remoteness) 'is' not considered dissociating to 'me' - except in that the distance retrospectively spontaneously (?!) constructed 'is' one to [reflexive relation] a 'false' [still transfixed in dualism] 'self' (pre-to-negation (allowing neutrality?!) fabricated 'I'/ego/cogito/subject) pensive to 'themselves' as object. Pornography is an interesting expression for the quoted idiom, would query you to why specifically this parlance, given its context/repercussions [destruction of eros, opening of distance in witnessing absence]. There has never been an 'orgasmic'/'joyful' feeling of using 'exquisitive' verbiage, nor an application to declare (pseudo-imitations/ridiculous) 'superiority', nor interject dominance to remediate an (a)voidant 'self' – they are not ornamental gilding's to be polished like mementos; praise means nothing & never will – ‘my’ (a)-orthodox language practice ‘is’ an ‘aperspectival-rebellion’ towards an appearance envisaged from an observation of a reflection of a thought, an information technique & renewal-as-same enveloped into a macro-microscopic process that encompasses ‘beings’/thought/things/events/motions greater than ‘my’ (non)-’self’ & any singular ‘thing’/substance. Perhaps 'it' 'is' an aggressive Eros having destroyed 'simple' Thanatos [prompt dissimulation] & absorbed its lifeless vitality, although ‘total’ completions are ‘never’ ‘final’/’this is’ embodies ‘its’ inverse & invites residual concentration. Perhaps a perverse absolute assertion of 'self' through denying 'itself' in name of neutrality. If so, 'I' sentence 'it' [exterior (non)'law'] to impotency. & thoroughly this leaves 'one' 'in' a seesawing precarity [a binarism evading nullity], hence why life-death 'is' conjoined by a placental, invisible, yet-felt yarn [grasping negation whilst neuter concealed]. But this talk [words, words, words...] is profusely, condemnably manichaean, when one has recollection of 'this' vanished thread.

Why ‘is’ vernacularization of transmission of ideas favored at all, (non)consequential to a prevailing etiquette of information discussion/reciprocity/pronouncements of emotivism? There is a certain fatalism here ‘’we cannot understand it’’ which precisely with sorrow ('personal' unavoidable yoke) in one sentence can (?!) evince the distinct atmospheres which 'we' reside surrounded, succinctly & perhaps with comprehension: 'Beings' in their very language have 'become' corrupted by the impositions of unknown rulers, worshiping at the altar of capital-'in'-dualism for the consumptive sign X, to the slain 'christ' ['here 'it' is']; as a faux individuality'. 'I' was reluctant to utilize emboldening as 'it' indicates the enclosed as the 'most important' utterances, that 'everything' can be summarised/encapsulated in a selected '', a negative space to which the singular 'is' prohibited from recognizing its dissipated, 'self'-other consumed effort, the very dimensions of the gaze. In space between words can one 'find' them. This 'is' an attempt to a translatable conversation, a rupture to 'false' bridgings, 'true' assignment/label dogmatism, a declared definition—where everything must 'possess' a fetishistic 'worth'; mechanisms of imperial measurement whose time seizes an 'eternal' (deceptive) time. Its length testifies to the unvaluable value placed on the unknown Other, the you.

Nobody 'is' immune from this [two meanings: everyone 'is' contained, Nothingness extraneous]. The notion of 'corruption' with recourse to purity attests to such. 'Is/as/in/on/to/the/I/they/we/being/becoming/self/past/present/future/movement statements' [men(ts plural)=mind, state of the mind; occupied abidingly 'in' a nation/ethnic collectivity, a forced supraorganism] require removal & reformulation to an impartial [passion (?!)]. Persistency of brackets as 'method' [acquired importance for clarification from alterity, negation of assertion; encircling 'closer' to a neutral interior to partisan lexis] must be strictly rigorous as this 'reply' ['l' will not 'be' heard whereas alternating 'it' gemini ism's struggle against this] language is the supreme medium of knowing/control/relating to the Other/potentialities of the 'subject' bound to this universe. Class definitions could be redefined [past the 'working class'] such that all societal stratum’s adhere to each sub-languages’ system of ‘logical’ signs; explicit total convergence stronger in ‘classes’ except ‘intellectualis’ although latter merely more ‘refined’ appearance. (appearance/TIE (non)debate manifests this presence).

Languages require separation, each theoretical school/sub-categorizations & classifications are explanatory/ruminative/reflective references to their own retranscribed shared phonetic/morphemic ‘degrees of freedom’ within relatively inflexible-boundaries imposed by language/syntax/lexis/grammar/metaphors before birth [that, commenting on how these potentialities are to be arranged/brought to awareness within each ‘mode-of-seeing’ paradigm (e.g., archaic, pre-modern, modern, post-modern still remaining modern) are relating by rudimentary Cartesian differences to the rupturus separation between 'being' & its object of necessary ‘indefinable’ ‘will’-craving sine qua non, an obligatory pre-thought that remains to be remembered diversely through its primary mode of transportation, movement through a constructive immunizing ‘history’. Absolute ‘truth’ presuppositions for instance 'this is supposed to have effect X' implies a predefined telos, which is the primary mode of power-perpetuation in dualism that if 'one' wants to apply a 'meta'-categorization of the above, 'needs' to be avoided/'transcended' sans classical transcendence to 'cogito ergo non sum ' – while jettisoning latin & hellenism, & avoiding negation (reversing capitalization as 'affirmative sabotage')].

Such reply 'is' apropos for this 'reason' then, 'one' [& 1] 'fails'/collapses saying [hegemony of vocalized (unrealized non-existent denotative) signified] A=A (what 'I' name 'is' what 'is' 'true' according to the Cartesian 'humanistic' infection of 'the' still-modern subject) given its simultaneous alterities – A can 'be' not A, A?A, A 'is' always A, A given B (+ other multiplex). A 'new' language must be formed, to [neutrally] (non)become 'the' +, an untranslatable reversed X crucifix [though understood 'within'/residing through immersive aura/trace]; 'the' third Z dimension [+ time as fourth, evanescent interpretations, things that are only known in their simultaneous hidden aspects that metamorph present, the present obscures to diminution, decay] for ['real'] 'human' cognition – which has relations to 'the' 'gender' question & implicit appellation...

Remain inquisitive to language when 'it' inquires onto you – 'unfortunately' words cannot conceive removed/removal from 'themselves' [why must words have (axiomatic pretensions of & recklessly reinforced) selves?!]