The spectator's alienation from and submission to the contemplated object (which is the outcome of his unthinking activity) works like this: the more he contemplates, the less he lives; the more readily he recognizes his own needs in the images of need proposed by the dominant system, the less he understands his own existence and his own desires [my emphasis]. The spectacle's externality with respect to the acting subject is demonstrated by the fact that the individual's own gestures are no longer his own, but rather those of someone else who represents them to him. The spectator feels at home nowhere, for the spectacle is everywhere (30).
Though I have quibbles with the translator's use of "contemplates" (an act of living, of quiet engagement potentially independent of the spectacle, I would argue) -- perhaps "desire" would have tighter connotations, or "yearning" (or perhaps the translator could have injected some humor by using "drools" in that clause) -- this passage brilliantly critiques the status quo (oh but we have been static for decades, haven't we?).
I wonder if it's but a gesture of its own, un-contemplated by the puppies drooling at their bowls, living from one bowel movement to the next.
"The spectacle is essentially tautological, for the simple reason that its means and its ends are identical. It is the sun that never sets on the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire globe, basking in the perpetual warmth of its own glory." [My emphasis]