This video deals more with the inversion of the state after it is collapsed, and the subsequent loss of the ghostly invariable which plays a role in the separation of the syntactic rigors of logic into the play of reason. Inversion of the syntax [X=X] - [X=x] describes so much while it's inversion =] x [= holds no rule from which a variable mistake could be made. Subject X is then balanced beyond reason to identify with a non-rational politic. The retention of rational organization above a supposedly free people namely 'DROs' (Disagreement Resolution Organizations) would contract carte blanche the root of the word 'freedom' away. The very distinction between object & subject of object, would be transformed to subject & topic of subject. I have to apologize: The very act of making a 3d palimpsest argument fails to securely take the viewer 'rationally' to any necessary nor definite conclusion. The video is to suggest (that without some retention of the state) that equality would shift from a 'sign to signified' to an: invariant sign pointing to (m)any equal signifieds. This is to say that the signifier would not denote but would simply note. And would inversely loose it's affixment (ifier) and be a vacuous scratch My only hope is that the spirit of the video is followed into it's obscure limits. LASTLY: In no way am I suggesting that XX by virtue of genital structure are subject to XY. But that following gender identification rules, such as this one, allows us to examine the history of such subjectation. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKHiWOgabUk

what does it mean to naturally emerge (back) into a logical space? To make home in an anachronistic ideal. aka cartesian modality. Is this irnatural? is it against Lex naturalis [hobbs]? ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAB-5h6dOiw