I will have to break that
I will have to break that post into two halves; there seems to be a code in the definition I posted that this editor does not like:
“And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.”
I’m sorry, but we define ‘things’ all the time without ever once thinking of ‘No-thing’ — whatever that is.
For example, here is a definition of ‘horse’:
“n.
1.
a. A large hoofed mammal (Equus caballus) having a short-haired coat, a long mane, and a long tail, domesticated since ancient times and used for riding and for drawing or carrying loads.
b. An adult male horse; a stallion.
c. Any of various equine mammals, such as the wild Asian species E. przewalskii or certain extinct forms related ancestrally to the modern horse.
2. A frame or device, usually with four legs, used for supporting or holding.
3. Sports A vaulting horse.
4. Slang Heroin.
5. Horsepower. Often used in the plural.
6. Mounted soldiers; cavalry: a squadron of horse.
7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.
7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horse