list everything here... everthing is everything because it is also not everything else.

geoff is geoff because geoff is also not table
table is table because table is also not paper bag
paper bag is paper bag because it is also not (signifier)
(and thus, the endless chain of signifiers, each one giving every other one meaning by not being anything other than itself)

our view of the nature of the thing is a construct, just like every other aspect of our perceived existence (gender, race, language, culture, politics, etc). that is to say that we invent and collectively validate (or, begrudgingly sanction, for lack of a reasonable alternative) structures asserting that an object is an object and an institution is an institution and an idea is an idea and a person is a person. we are doomed to exist inside of the framework of these constructions, as self conscious beings, in order to establish (invent) social networks key to survival and proliferation.

we need to talk.

a thing is a thing, a biological entity is a thing, an animal is a thing, a marsupial is a thing, a kangaroo is a thing, a joey is a thing.

is it not a contradiction to say that a joey is a joey because it is also not a kangaroo? in our constructed existence, can an object be different than its signifier? a joey is a kangaroo, but a kangaroo is not necessarily a joey. to answer this question, we might need to reread it (the preceding question) in several different languages... i recommend that we start with some pama- nyungan tempered by some form of Inuit (eskimo... ehem).