>>that is what you suggested.
>>
>
>Where?

In a previous post. If you like I could point exactly where. You did not directly suggest this, but reading between your lines and applying a logical analysis this was the conclusion I drew from your statement.

>Posts back I wrote that you are an object and you responded
>that you an not an object, you are the Queen's subject. If you
>agree that you ARE an object, why did you disagree when I
>wrote it?

There is the second half of the statement That you conviniently forgot. I disagree with you because I disgree with your intellectual position, so therefore I will attack that position from ever conceivable angle. You're like a dog with a bone.

" The only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could be thought of as a physical being, i.e. an object, (but this word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this thought subjective or objective?"


So therefore I did not disagree with being an object, i wanted to point out that I am far more than an object. And within the context of human affairs, the only way I have heard of a person being referred to is as an object of something (i.e. desire, hate etc.). A state of affairs that could be described as the subjectivist nightmare of idolatry and narcissism that we live in.