Tristram Shandy and Spacks

Is the post-modern transition Spacks notes in the use of the word "boring", wherein it becomes a description of an object rather than a subject, observable in other mind states as well?


She is a dreadfully boring woman... The notion that boredom inheres in the consciousness of its experiencer appears to have vanished. Now to call something boring describes an object rather than a subject....A new form of moralizing directs opprobrium toward the cause rather than the victim of boredom.
-Boredom Pg. 22


"Let CONSCIENCE determine the matter upon these reports;--- and then if the heart condemns thee not, which is the case the Apostle supposes,---the rule will be infallible"
[Here Dr. Slop fell asleep]
-Tristram Shandy Pg. 109


Spacks describes a change in the use of the use of the word "boring" that I found similar to changes in the usages of the words "psychosis", "curiosity", "delusion" throughout the semester. She describes them differently; however I think in essence we may be describing the same thing. My papers described a transisiton where psychosis went from being a description of what I call a "process" (where the person is separate from psychosis) to a "mind state" (where the person is indiscernable from the psychosis). We see a change, a person no longer has a psychosis, they are psychotic. Spacks shows an post-modern example where a woman IS bording, opposed to the previous uses of the word we saw in Rambler and Idler where an individual were talking about their experience of being bored. When she states that the word becomes a description of an object rather than a subject, I believe she means in the philosophical sense, rather than the grammatical sense. I explored further the ideas of subject and objects in philosophy; objects are thought of as "entities" and subjects are "observers". In the first post-modern use boring is an intrinsic property of the entity, however in the latter use boring is something the subject observes. When I was describing psychosis as "process" I was specifically noting the distinction separation between the person and the phenomena, in this example the mind state is also describing a subject. When I describe psychosis as a "mind state", I meant to denote the inseparability of the person from the mind state (ex. they ARE psychotic), in this example psychosis is describing an object (one that is intrinsically psychotic). Spacks goes on to describe some of the troubling implications of this switch, when "boring" comes to describe a object rather than a subject; I have seen parallels of this manifestation when many other mind states (specifically psychosis, delusion, and curiosity) are used to describe objects rather than subjects. I wonder if also her criteria concerning the reasons for this change would be explain the factors leading to similar transitions in other mind states.
In the quote from Tristram Shandy, we would have to project the idea that Dr. Slop being bored was the result of his sleep because it isn't expressly said; however if we take that assumption, we see boredom functioning similarly to descriptions in Ramblr and Idler where it is describing a subject, or an external thing that performs a function on the subject.