Getting back to non-history (2/3)

There are no more statements.

There are no more people.

There are no more things.

These are the last three statements ever to be spoken by the same person.

They are all three of the things of one person made of no more people.

And they have barely survived in the native meaning of that person no more, but for the exactitude of them. To us.

They are now three times the same thing. Three times over of a person again. Three things out of one having been said and not any one of them.

A people that was up to those things and the person who states them up to no more.

A people of the statement not more than once, whether repeated or not.

All the people of those three statements, said once.

To the one last person to have said something.

A sort of statement of the people that were but did not become.

Re-Stated for the after people. For things after no more things.

So not things of those before things.

So three statements of the state(d) things. But not of the state of things.

And this would be the state.

The things of no more things, stated apart from the people. Altogether, put together, a State.

Like a person. But much more likely to be lost than to get lost.

And three things stated of the people are nothing but stated things of the state(d) people.

The people that are lost before anything begins to get lost.

The people that would be in that state, if it were a state.

They are of the people because they cannot be by the people. There are no more statements.

And of the people of sorted things of a populated thing.

In this case a state people of a state person who has not been leftover, but for statements.

For statements of a person disintegrated in a non-thing said of a not-people.

Three statements, not four statements.

From a State which has always been left. The thing that got over itself, whether lost or not.

A state of not stating. This one, the state of no more statements, not the one before. The one before cannot be stated. And we cannot state.

So to a State, which overlooks things like the overstated.

To be made up or out of three statements, of three things (statements, people and things), by the people of one person, left, overcome.

Not leftover, not come.

By the question of the state which is not the state that has been done.

And the state that has come.

But the undone state of the State that has not been stated, populated, or Stated.

And did also leave in one person at once, of all the people, statements and things.

The person that must have been there. And so the people that must have, too.

But not the people of the statement. And not a double negation.

If in the statement we could have got so far back to going so far back.

So far, everything is back. Nothing anymore.

The statement is it.

The people who cannot be stated and who were not stated in the person who has stated.

But not the person who has been stated.

This is not a thing.

This is not their statement.

There would always now be one too many.

After one. So actually always four statements: the one that has not been left of those that were left.

Far from the same person, stating it, as its end, all at once.

The far gone voice of all three at once, being fourth in line of their out of line outline.

But since up to an unended State of the difference, four cannot be stated for that would be one, too. We are left at three. Whilst not being able to put it simply.

The answerless question of a time between left and come.

Its answerless person. Who faded into the people as they had been led up to him.

It now takes too long to say this, for it to make sense.

For it makes no sense to talk of no more statements, because there are no more statements.

Of the things there are no more, nothing can make sense of saying them in their negative way.

That we have not got over the prefix of a person and the suffix of a people.

The person who went into three states of the end of stated things, and a people that disappeared in a person.

The implication is that this difference is in a number.

What could have been said of the State before the end of the state?

It could have been stated, populated, objectified.

What could have been said of the State before the numerical implication?

All three things at once.

But now having said too many things stated at once.

All three things repeated four times whether or not.

There would not be one person to say it again, but three people.

But the fourth one is the one who is missing.

All three of them.

And they would overhear each other.

They would overhear the person who leaves to the Leaf of State.

The question state is, which again cannot pretend to reveal anything about the state of the question: who could have even heard these last three things ever to be spoken by one person at once?

Who would have even been those people?

Do we have to go looking for 5?

Who has even heard of such a thing?

For now, 3 is the last number.

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s