Dichotomy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
in astronomy: when half of an astral body is seen from earth | in astronomy: when half of an astral body is seen from earth | ||
[[File:3 yinyang infinity.jpg|thumb]] | [[File:3 yinyang infinity.jpg|thumb|The yin-yang infinity signage]] | ||
Yin and Yang:A shorthand explanation often describes ''yin'' and ''yang'' as woman and man, and all the other dualistic pairs, as mentioned in Jacques Lacan’s seminars: “je ne parle pas du ''Yin'' et du ''Yang'', comme tout le monde vous savez cela : le mâle et le femelle.” Although Mladen Dolar, quoted earlier, deems Chinese to be incomprehensible, he nevertheless spends a long paragraph explaining ''yin-yang'' as “two (''and only two'') poles of masculine and feminine.” He concludes there is a “strong thesis” in the “Taoist” symbol: “there is a relation. There is a sexual relation. Every relation is sexual.” | Yin and Yang:A shorthand explanation often describes ''yin'' and ''yang'' as woman and man, and all the other dualistic pairs, as mentioned in Jacques Lacan’s seminars: “je ne parle pas du ''Yin'' et du ''Yang'', comme tout le monde vous savez cela : le mâle et le femelle.” Although Mladen Dolar, quoted earlier, deems Chinese to be incomprehensible, he nevertheless spends a long paragraph explaining ''yin-yang'' as “two (''and only two'') poles of masculine and feminine.” He concludes there is a “strong thesis” in the “Taoist” symbol: “there is a relation. There is a sexual relation. Every relation is sexual.” | ||
Revision as of 16:31, 21 January 2026
Dichotomy (freely > doubleness?), (formal, countable noun, adj. dichotomous)
informally: beign in two minds about something,
in logic: split into two categories that are mutually exusive and jointluy exhaustive,
in botany: split into two (branches and rooots),
in astronomy: when half of an astral body is seen from earth
Yin and Yang:A shorthand explanation often describes yin and yang as woman and man, and all the other dualistic pairs, as mentioned in Jacques Lacan’s seminars: “je ne parle pas du Yin et du Yang, comme tout le monde vous savez cela : le mâle et le femelle.” Although Mladen Dolar, quoted earlier, deems Chinese to be incomprehensible, he nevertheless spends a long paragraph explaining yin-yang as “two (and only two) poles of masculine and feminine.” He concludes there is a “strong thesis” in the “Taoist” symbol: “there is a relation. There is a sexual relation. Every relation is sexual.”
The short capitulation “yin and yang” or more “yin-yang” written together, showing an unconventional order of words, perhaps already hints at something different: the masculine habit of appearing first is at least reversed on the lexical level. Since one would never say yang-yin or yang and yin, one might at least pause for a moment before rushing into turning yin-yang into another symbol of the myth of a crosscultural, universal, and ahistorical patriarchy.
