is the name of the thing
Author : Zenon Kelper
Introduction - skip to main text:
A friend wrote:
For me, a thought has to be exactly represented as a word..a "square" thought must be represented in a "square" word. Each thought, taken as a symbolic geometric shape, must find the the geometric equivilent in a word. It fits right in. Then it is launched at the person that you are talking to. A round thought in a round word. When a round thought is put into a triangularly shaped word..the message does not get through.
It is good, very good - he was also refering elsewhere to Fabre d'Olivet who claimed that letters were hieroglyphs versus Champollion who discovered that hieroglyphs were letters. Fabre d'Olivet also was very good. He was also depicting three levels of meaning in a linguistic unit. Excellent!
But my friend said he was missing something - that I must say. Because of his history, he was not acquainted with the link. He was for instance studying the Origins without studying History (that links the Origins to the Present). He thought that history was a mess - but Origins are chaos my friend. But most of all, he did not figure that the Structure is in the Link.
The link between things - between letters, is what enable rounds and triangles to make sense. A round alone is stupid as an ass-hole and a triangle alone is stupid like a cunt. The following will explain why I use words that justify the censorship of internet and knowledge, as usual, for the safety of children.
I must warn any children to get off this page immediatly, for we are going to talk about sex. The link is sex - I beleive that I have to make it noticed. It is perhaps in something even more dangerous for children, the link may be perversion - the "version of the father" as French say.
Now that we are between adults, I can say that the anus is a nice little thing for therapists - for instance mine have a name - the name of a writer who use my knowledge to wrtie obscene things. He is like a brother to me, because I am not so sure that the anus is the Name of the Father as Lacan said.
As I may be wrong, I let my topology being read by my colleagues. The title of the book was THEAUX and my colleagues explained, in another book profusely illustrated with Michael Angelo's Moses, that they would not publish a word of it. Actually I had stated that THEAUX had been writen for teaching one or two things to the future Artificial Intelligence.
As psychoanalytical, my topology refers to the genital organ.
In refering a penis envy to an anamorphosis (e.g. the clitoris) Freud showed what he did not want to know about. For an anamorphosis do not distinguishes a lot - I have explained that in a lecture<down> - but something which is not establihes a distinction (I must be clear: if "C" is not, "A" may be different than "B" - otherwise, "A", "B", "C" etc... makes a Metonymic Series that is a repetition; only when a "C" is as zero, then "A" and "B" may be distinguished; this is called a Metaphore as in the Father & Son lineage where the signified chromosome Y is different from the significant Y Name).
For instance I made notice that the inguinal orifice was musch more distinguishing than the penis clitoris big/small opposition. It is especially noticeable for Freud did not talk at all about the balls in his article dedicated to the anatomical distinction between genders - he did not say a word about the testicules that are known when you are a doctor. So he really said what he did not want to know about. However in doing so, he set the nuts as zero - allowing to speak about a distinction between people (A&B).
At the end of my lecture a theatening woman asked me if I wanted to re-establish a difference between men and women, and a man in the distance said that he did not care if he had been an iguane.
Lacan said that he refused to talk about the Name of the Father - myself it's just that I am very embarassed, I don't refuse to talk, I just don't want to mean that you refuse to hear. So I stood silent for a while - wainting for the clones and for the possible Artificial Intelligence.
And continue to write for the sky:
Let's talk about the Ankh. Among many things, the Ankh is an hole. Mystics say that it makes a wall beween the whole All and the awl. Indeed it is like a spine, which pierces a hole in the thick leather of our somatic existence, to allow the neural chord to meet the Earth.
Here is a vertebra and here is an Ankh:
They are obviously similar although my vertebra could be better and the ankh could be different. The point is just to show that this very ancient egyptian symbol - this kind of letter, of hieroglyph could not be ignored as representing - among the plurality of the Meaning - the spinal canal and what's inside.
In a most important writing exploring what would be beyond the principle of pleasure Freud mention the very specificity of neural system, that is to be different from the soma - he noticed also that the semen, the sperm or the testicules were accordingly different. The article is not important only because it shows that Freud knew that testicules existed. Since he showed elsewhere that he would ignore them, it indicates the pathos which would result in the knowledge of the neural system.
For instance an uncertain symbolisation of the testicules could result in an excentric identification of the neural system. If the vertebra were an Ankh, this result would set the Significand of unidentification (e.g. an alien) in the neural (spinal chord) place.
Here is an alien, hetero, UfoAnk : as the neural system is alien
This is calling for the Ankh in place of the testicules
to counterbalance the no-sense (unidentified) in place of the vertebra!
Children still keep off! I shall speak of libido, drive. The spiritual energy of the body passes through its sphincters. Psychoanalysis noted that sphincters were our Earthial Gates. Similar to some Feed-Back system, the drive described by Psychoanalysis is like a Meta. In the ancient time, a meta was a staff around which race horses were making U-turns.
There are two ways to objectify this Meta either with a claw, a staff which locks the "U", or simply by a ligature.
Lock or Ligature
Both are interesting for they represent two major components of the testicle physiology: Those are both ways to link the meanings of what is inside and outside the soma - to link letters, to give sense instead of an alienation.
Applied to the spheres, the staff way is the sexual lineage which - abstractly - put on a skewer the male bodies which are attached to the same Y. Their name, patronynic is their skewer - it is easy to see that the males (Father's sons) are there hanging by the balls.
The other one is the closure of the inguinal sphincter which prevent the re-entering of the nut in the abdomen.
Both are something that women have no idea of.
So Freud was not so wrong is searching for the feminine envy elsewhere. Yet he was wrong for it causes hallucination instead of neuralisation.
Neuralisation is not a usual word. It means that I have say enough. I have published in French the detailed explaination of this major factor in the psyche - titled La Fonction de l'Organe - and in English another demonstration called From Embryo to Homunculus<up>. It is far far far enough for our stage of development.
The night I wrote the last paragraphs above, a snow storm coming from Hale-Bopp direction swooped down on muyhouse , and I heard screaming from the kitchen that a cake was burning. The thrill of the Apocalypse remembered me that I must add somthing for the Goddess and all the Shees who wonder if I meant what I meant.
The Patronymic is obsolete, one can buy for a few $ a kit and store one's billion genes. The unspecularisable sphincter is for us all as a test tube or some sort of machine. Even iguanes (re:above) should not worry - their eggs will have a Name in the sky from now and forever.
I recall the first step:
The brain cannot brain itself - this is a Cyber law. Yet the same paradox can be analysed in Deep Linguistic I can say the truth in saying that I am lying, for there is a split which divides the Significand according to a possible formulation.
Master's Discourse by J.Lacan
This formula represents an original Significand,
S1, and its transmission as
according to the aphorism: The information was lost and the transmission failed,
the crossed-out S indicates the lost transmission, and "a" the failure
This Ek-Stream formation of the Significand is not alien - a-link, a-ligion a-ligatured - it is an ek-topy which beats in the Cyber Law as a CybEK heart.
Evidently, the formation of Ankh is the key to a Monotheistic system.
END OF THE PAGE
EXCHANGE IDEAS, IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE
Registration to a
time $15 fee
All transactions are secured
© William Theaux 1949-1999