Returning to yesterday's discussion in class-- We were saying that since the words "male" and "female" describe a state of being that is at once self-contradictory, perhaps definitions themselves are something fluid. This of course brings up a great paradox-- Can a definition be fluid? Isn't the point of defining something with a word to endow it a constant, distinguishable quality that will illicit a universally "signified" image?
These are a few very strange images that are not only haunting if stared at for too long, but also put one at a loss for words. My question to you is, do we use existing words to describe these new images, as in "lion with a full head of human hair and a strangely human expression" or "face comprised entirely of mouths" OR is it best to develop entirely new words and categories for these images because they are unable to be placed in any existing category of meaning. Developing a "third" word might be the best way to understand this type of absurdity. The face made of mouths could be a Fouth. The human looking lion could be a Hulion. Or a Liman. And then of course there could be Chickarettes. So what do you all think? Are there some things that are just too strange, that in order to even comprehend require a third word from the realm of the "queer?"
