Rogueish

Any particular hole exercises fascination not because it reprises an original hole (womb, anus etc) but because it dramatises or embodies an some basic ontological issue. The first hole encountered was only the first time this problem was localised, so it has not pre-eminence, no priority. All holes are equidistant from this ‘origin’, this situation. All, equally, are concrete stagings of some underlying dilemma. In destroying the ‘original’ hole, Sartre also destroys the logic which makes all subsequent holes into metaphors of the origin. For the hole only localises the encounter with Nothing, and this encounter is an existential given.

Yes, though I’ve always read Freud this way, too. In Freud, nothing is about sex, especially not sex.