I think a lot about language. A good chunk of my spare thought time is burned up thinking about the stories we tell, and how we value them, or not. A few months ago, I read the blog of a woman who was trying to work through the loss of her child. Her writing was full of cliches and poorly expressed ideas, even though her anguish and loss were obviously sincere. Another time, I read of a woman, who on moving to Canada, never became fully competent at speaking English as a second language, and so, found that because she could not express the complexities of her thought life, that it became as if they did not exist.
I think about these two women and how their difficulty with language became a difficulty with processing life, and reality.
We must, it seems, speak our lives into existence, and without the tools to do so, flounder around, bashing at hazy ideas that fail to anchor themselves in our understanding. I think of that bible verse when Peter is given the "keys" of heaven - and told that what we let loose on earth will be let loose in Heaven, and it seems much the same thing with language. To say, "I love you," for the first time, is when that love begins to exist. To confess a sin, is to admit to its existence and so, fully see it.
"In the beginning..., and God said..., and it was so." God spoke our world into existence. Our womb, was language.
And, in John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
God is THE Word, and so, the purist form of existence. God is language. (?)
What is funny and frustrating about all these things I'm thinking about, is my inability to express and make the connections I am trying to make. I am the woman with the cliches, the one trying to speak in a foreign language. There's so much I want to know, and, right now, unable to learn. I am always on the cusp of ideas that I can't take hold of, because I haven't learned enough about what I am trying to speak into existence.
The only words available to me for a frustration like that, is, "Awwwww, damn!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Aww is pretty good. Okay here is some more about language and religion. The great linguistic philosopher, Wittgenstein (sp?) says exactly what you are saying only in non-religious terms: that all things knowable are only knowable through languages systems (languages, in a broader sense). It is only when we climb out of these language systems (like we do when we strive to word experiences that are beyond our language-world) that we understand the constructive world-creating power of languages. For Wittgenstein (added a t there) what this means is that, in asking questions (philosophical or otherwise) the answers to the questions are already apparent because they are apart of the language system, and thus, already in existence. Thus it is only when we gather together the language of physics that we can start posing questions that yield new answers. Thus, for good ol' Witt, the QUESTIONS were the things to really focus on. Spending the time to find the right question is really the quest. To this, philosophers like Heidegger propose uncovering questions like: what is being, or what is the nature of being-in-the-world, or rather what is the being nature of the world.
So what questions can we now present that push along the boundary at which you utter Awwwww, damn?
you're such a helpful guy!
ok, so i've heard a little about the whole - experience outside of language thing(and yes, i do mean language in a broader sense, too) and it's crazy exciting to me. i think it was Deleuze and Guattari that we were talking about. one of my profs was saying that the only languageless experience she could think of was an orgasm. ahhh, but she was a queer studies prof, and admitted that everything came down to sex and war for her. it seems to me though, that lots of religious experiences are languageless.
hmmmm, what do you mean when you say "the language of physics?
i think a philosopher had better decide that the questions are more important than the answers, or she would work herself out of a job, yes?
just want to say again that i really enjoy what you throw on here.
thank you, alex. that's so nice to hear - you made me all smiley.
Post a Comment