"signifier and signified" are a pair of linguistic concepts, which were introduced into psychoanalysis by Lacan and reformed.

Signifier, there are other names, others, father's name, ideology and so on.

In Saussure's view, signifier refers to the images and sounds that constitute a language symbol, but refers to the concepts or meanings expressed by such images and sounds.

Simply put, the signifier is words, and the signifier is meaning. In a symbol system, that is, a language, signifier and signified are combined with each other. Of course, this combination is arbitrary, but it is fixed for a period of time after it is formed.

Lacan reinterprets this theory, and Lacan thinks that signifier and signified are not fixed correspondence. When we use our own signifiers, we are more likely to slide on the signifier chain. This signifier will appear when we slide to an anchor point and when we go back (inferring upward and inferring inward). The signifier chain here is actually a set of language, the sliding of the signifier is the expression of language, and the anchoring point is actually the time for us to interpret and psychologically analyze our own speech.

In Lacan's view, language is so because of unconscious reasons. When we communicate in language, we seem to be expressing our meaning, but psychoanalysis will explain more meaning. Because what you do consciously is actually more controlled and influenced by the unconscious.

The composition of the unconscious is a symbol of the world, which is constructed by the influence of the surrounding environment. When we express an idea, it is formed because what you experienced before was unconsciously constructed and formed, and this idea was given by others.

Lacan's signifier and signified are more used in the sense of psychoanalysis. We went back, in fact, in psychoanalysis. The so-called manifestation means that we explore the reasons behind our actions at a deeper level, rather than simply analyzing your current self-awareness of behavior. The explanation of such a pair of concepts is to highlight the role of the unconscious.

To know what you know is to make it up in your mind.

If you know nothing, you know nothing.

This refers to the stage or object. To prove that I'm fake. We can't create one object in isolation, there must be two. Just know it.

Take apples for example. Apple knows, so there must be someone who knows, and that is me. I see apples. An object is perceived, and at the same time an object is created to do the action of perception.

The meaning of that sentence is that knowledge and knowledge are all illusions created by the heart. If we can realize that what we know is false, then we can realize that what we know is also false. If we can realize that Apple is fake, then we can also realize that I know Apple is fake.

In other words, "I" is an object. We use object to object. What you did, what you approved, and so on. Actually, it's all air-to-air. We created an object "I" as a carrier to perceive the world. That is, that can know.

There is a key point here, that is, I am also the object of creation. We are constantly creating objects, and reason can only grasp the objects, but can't grasp the things that create the objects, which is called "self" for the time being. I've tried to make it concrete. . .

What is the language? Language is a symbol. What is a symbol? Everything that is meaningful is a symbol. Tables, cups and all kinds of brands are symbols. Because it is meaningful in your mind, you will feel that a certain function, taste, aesthetics, identity, etc. can only be said to be meaningful if one thing is useful. When you see an apple, do you think it is interesting? Can I eat it? Why do you like watching small movies and naked people? Is it useful? Of course it is. All kinds of image changes are meaningful to the audience and can bring happiness.

Whether it is a thing, a thing or a person, as long as this "thing" can evoke a certain meaning in your heart, it is called a symbol, and its meaning is very extensive. Symbol is not only a language, but also a kind of symbol.

Give some chestnuts. Everything in the world, such as stones, sky and lightning, is a symbol as long as it forms a certain meaning in your heart. Another example is machines, mobile phones, computers, integrated circuits, and various tattoos. What people create, as long as you feel meaningful and useful, is a symbol.

Also, including people's thoughts and ideas, run in your mind. If you have some reflections on your own ideas at this time, you realize this idea, have a judgment, feel stable, dangerous, right and wrong, and have a qualitative idea of your own ideas, all of which can become symbols. Symbols have very broad meanings.

As long as something is meaningful and useful, it is a symbol, which is why psychoanalysis attaches so much importance to symbols. Therefore, psychoanalysis began to analyze people's psychology from symbols in the 1960s and 1970s. There is no truth or fallacy, but a theory. Lacan analyzes symbols from signifier and signified.

Could mean. Can represent another thing. Remarkable person? (sign an image, a logo) activity

The signified-the signified meaning of the symbol is expressed by something else. Pointing at something, passive

For example, I saw an apple today. I said, this is an apple. I said the word "apple". This apple is a symbol. It can point to the real apple, this thing. This real apple is what it refers to.

The signifier is a symbol, and the signifier is a meaning.

The Buddha first proposed that the word "knowing and knowing" should be used strictly.

To know what you know is to make it up in your mind.

If you know nothing, you know nothing.

If you know that what you know is a psychological fabrication and a kind of "nothing", there is no need to persist, so pointing to the signifier is also a psychological fabrication.

For example, a Hermes bag has caused various meanings in your mind. Hermes is a symbol and a signifier. With this signifier, I have all the meaning and knowledge that Hermes has given me. Buddha said it was meaningless. You paid your imagination and imagination for this bag. You pile up what you know and what you know. Playing by yourself is "nothing".

Why people think that symbols are meaningful is because people have gone through the mirror image stage, and various meanings corresponding to symbols and the self (energy) of that illusion are produced in pairs.

In the mirror stage, people become concrete and have an image. If you don't have this image, you are a mixed entity and you can't make sense. You have no boundaries, no boundaries, how can you create boundaries?

Think about it, whether the image in life will have an image, a boundary, specifically, from the mirror stage.

There is a story in the Shurangama Sutra, which refers to the finger of the moon.

One monk educates another monk. Educate an explorer.

Monk, say you saw it. I pointed to the moon in the sky.

Then ask this seeker, what do you think I mean?

The seeker is not stupid, saying I know you mean this moon.

The monk said, if Buddhism and these theories are fingers, what do they mean?

The seeker said: Oh, I see, this finger can indicate that the theories of Buddhism, Buddhism and Buddhist scriptures all point to the great realm we are pursuing, which is complete and enlightened. That's what it means.

What the monk means is that these theories are symbols and knowable. They are not the big realm I want you to see, and the theory just points to the big realm. What we know.

Is there really a big realm? Does this really exist? Does the moon this monk refers to exist?

Ordinary people will feel suddenly enlightened when they hear such words. 95% people will subconsciously think, oh, I know, I think I know. This is great wisdom. Theory is not an end, not the moon. What I want to pursue is the moon, which means the great realm.

The question is, is there really that knowledge, that moon, that great realm? That's just what the monk himself said. Can the monk see the moon by himself? Was the moon he saw created by his own thoughts? Did other monks see the moon created by their own thoughts? Does he see the same moon as other monks?

How did he ensure that you could watch the moon with him through some theories? How can you two see the same moon?

Does this moon, that great kingdom really exist? Does this knowledge really exist?

If you know nothing, you know nothing.

If what you know is nothing and what you know is nothing, then why do you cling to what you can know (Dharma)?

Ask yourself, does the moon really exist? What makes you think there is a moon, but you can't prove it and you can't do experiments? When people tell you there is a big moon, do you really think there is a big moon there?

You can turn a deaf ear to what I just said and think that I know the obstacles and haven't reached the border yet.

But if you don't know what you know, you can know that you have nothing. This is what the strict sutra says, knowing nothing means knowing nothing, and the month does not exist. Isn't that contradictory? Why is it contradictory?

That's what I said in the Secret Words, not what I said. In the strict sutra, what is known is nothing.

The Shurangama Sutra also refers to the moon. How to understand it?

You need to know if this is dialectical. You can say yes or no, yes and no are interdependent, and it is difficult to complement each other. All theories, human hearts and behaviors in this world are full of contradictions and conflicts, all of which stem from contradictions.

Lacan realized here that the signifier is more critical and dominant. Why? Because everyone's reference is different, it is an ambiguous thing and very personalized. Everybody knows.

For example, yellow, some people think that yellow is a bright color, which can give me a sense of transcendence. Some people think it is an orthodox and royal color, while others think it is yellow, erotic and small. Yellow is a signifier, and then different people have different signifiers. The same signifier can point to many things, depending on everyone's personality (what you have experienced in your life and what you have subconsciously) and thoughts. These refer to trouble, chaos, chaos, and you can't catch it. Because it depends entirely on each individual.

However, Lacan thinks this signifier is unique. For example, I am a, and now I will talk about a signifier, ontology, philosophical language, language and symbol. Then someone will ask me, and then B will ask me what this signifier means. A said, Ah, this is what Kant said. B still doesn't understand, but he still has to ask, who is Kant and why? Then A must continue to explain and use a new "signified" to explain the previous signified. The previous signified here has become a signifier, and it has not been explained clearly, so it needs to be explained. It must be pointed out and explained.

That is to say, when the second part explains the first step, the second step is the reference, and when the third part explains the second step, the second step becomes the signifier again. This chain can go on indefinitely. I said 1, and then I need to explain 1 with 2, and then I need to explain 24567 with 3. . . . Infinite downward extension. For human language, concepts and symbols, it is an endless explanation chain that can be extended indefinitely. Pinch the head, because there is no end point, after removing the starting point, the reference left behind is also a signifier. Because it needs to be explained through the following links, based on the above reasons. Lacan believes that in the binary opposition between the signifier and the signified, the signifier and the signified are dominant and have rights. The signifier is like a king, and the signifier is like those subjects and slaves.

The signifier is a symbol, meaning and dominance. We live in symbols, the meaning of symbols, and social relations. We can't destroy meaning and our social attributes.