No review is more informative than an except from a typical lecture by Prof. Yeung, a devout stylistic and intellectual follower of a certain well-known poststructuralist thinker: "This assymetry of binary oppositions incessantly disrupts, disengages, and, at last, destroys the weaker of the pair. The sole metaphysical escape that the impossible has from the overwhelming sea of the possible is to withstand ejaculation, then reinject itself into
the possible, and finally subversively overturn the dominance granted to it by imperfect human grammar, thereby freeing the subjective floating signifier within the sign from the omnipresent threat of verbal castration by distending the reflexive signification of the former. This difficulty is, at last, precisely the same difficulty
that hordes of modern phenomological philosophers of language tried to tackle and failed--how can two entities be at once disparately different and desperately similar? How can sameness and difference be same or different if the sameness of or difference between the very concepts of sameness and difference is doubted, even challenged? And yet the cause of this apparent difficulty, as I have demonstrated above, is a confusion--due to, I might add, an especially obnoxious
kind of mental laziness that plagues sadly many of my colleagues--so simple that it approaches the point of sheer idiosy: understanding the words "possible" and "impossible" as opposites detaches the mind from the obvious reality that, rather than two ends of a stick balanced in the middle, they are much more like a line of infinitesimal width cut out from a pie versus the rest of that pie..."