Representation 1

I note Copjec (Read My Desire) uses the term representation. I'm wondering if what I'm picking up (nothing original from me) as how we can capture representation as this - it would be fungible, as, for instance, eroticism (and what in cynicism?) could be defined beyond Butler's performative among rival theories. I doubts that the performative accounts for anything except some parametering that can't go beyond parametering, is, in this way, a covering of representation (those images do haunt, whatever else) - is the use of the body as if an occupied thing (a'la Descartes and so much more)?
As if we are alien to it and, of course vice versa. Nothing novel. It is easy to forget the body as it is difficult to ignore it.
Butler's latest appears, in interview, to propose the cop problem is that they consider their bodies public property by divine decree. The theological exertions and permutations may have been laid out by Eco, I don't know, as I'm reminded of Catharism among other things.
Because it's not enough to begin taking drives, and/or something we put instinct into shape for or against, something that we made peculiar to choosing to get our own intuition (which we hold heuristically), as these basic clusters of dynamics that are far and wide from our thoughts. They are not neither Real nor real Unconscious. One may say it is all that we could be as Conscious, not much different from abiotic? And this, because taking up the PCE of Wolfram is interesting, would be another covering, culture defeats epigenetics this way I'd claim, of what is working one as a body. Because I've collapsed what is mostly Hume. There's no reason that reason lets us down. There's just nature trying out what it can?

I nearly forgot. Gendering superego, which should have been obvious, as I did, was simply reproducing what is the gendering of nature. Copjec's seeking some change on it. I'm unable to get a reading on it yet, so to speak. It is our lapsus, or only mine?