Penis and Vagina

Psychoanalysts, for a variety of very good reasons, want to sexualize the concept of sign.

Some will say: The sign is like a penis pointing to the signified.

Others will say: The sign is like a vagina enveloping and containing a meaning.

I saw a porn once, there was this girl with two inch long lee press-on nails (as I recall) and she took two of her fingers and jammed it in a man's urethra, penetrating it with her fingers.

The video was called Tricky Dicks so you can go look it up if you don't believe me.

The point I guess is, that I couldn't get this image out of my mind and my guess is that most men reading this post are holding their crotches right now just thinking about it. It's painful just to think about it.

Suffice it to say. The signifier can hold meaning, but it makes it very uncomfortable.

Just kidding.

The container motif is analogous (or isomorph) to a seed, which is contained in the urethra of an ejaculating penis.

Now let's go back to "This Sentence is False"

"This Sentence" = "This sentence is false."

...So we can swap out the entire sentence for a portion of it (ie: a metanym contained in the system which itself is a part, but can be swapped with the whole)...

In a sense it cannot stop "signifying itself", and psychoanalysts everywhere would read such an utterance as the phallus/signifier in an everlasting state of ejaculation/signifying.

At any rate, what's seriously interesting, and not merely hilarious, is the idea of the Word as Seed. Derrida writes about this and so does Stanley Fish both via Phaedrus, and to me all this stuff is also expressible in terms of variability in number theory. The X is an undefined state of pure potential.

At any rate. We are now going to have to talk about different kinds of nothing. The first nothing being the corporial nothing is pure reflection, as an essence.

The second nothing, which is nowehere, is more like anything.

I leave this intentionally vague though I mean something very specific by it. And so it has the sense of a sort of autological expression of how that variability becomes unvaried or assigned some value.

We want to collapse the potential states into a single value. The ability to do this is really important:

Imagine that there is a wild beast running at you. You think maybe the wild beast is trying to harm you, or perhaps he has a gift he's really excited to give you.

The guy who ponders this dies. So for very good reasons, the impulse there is to conclude.

So people often ask me, Dave, are you not drawing conclusions, are you not trying to explain things in a single unified theory.

Yes, I say, why not? It can't be done, so the damage that it would cause is irrelevant. We try anyway, and we advance. To "not try to close off the debate" is the death of the argument.

Anyway, we find something like evolution which didn't come perfect out of the box, but gradually was elaborated and its general premises proved invaluble to hedging our bets in the act of inquiry.

We're gamblers really, we bet our time on such and such idea, that this is the one that's going to blow the others all away. But that's not how it goes. Truth is we're all just a rungs on a ladder, and that's the best of all philosophers if such a label even applies anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSo4IICBTY