Is There a Binary Signifier?

How you're defining universal is like, i think, very, very important. And it's not, it's not evident. I think how loon is thinking about it. When we talk about the universal, we talk about concrete ti in the inthe singulars and the universal and the universals a singular,. That's certainly hegel's position. But i don't think lacon means that though, because i don't Think e identifies masculine with universal pretty clearly. So instead of an s too as just a discreet signifier that would put an end to signification, what we get instead are just knowledge.