Mystics and Hubristics

 

Continuing from: the Stupidest Idea

Certain people believe (or purport to believe) that all thought is in language, that being itself is in language, that "language is the house of being," that nothing escapes language, that "there is nothing outside the text," that, in principle at least, everything is expressible, or at least that everything that is important is expressible and that if anything else remains, we may discard it as irrelevant.  We can call these people "Hubristics."

Then, certain other people make language into a kind of villain, and believe not only that the most important truths are ultimately inexpressible, but that one shouldn't try - that attempting to express the inexpressible can only have a corrupting influence, that all representation is corruption, that we should "embrace the silence," that only a pure, unmediated experience is genuinely authentic.  Some go so far as to take a vow of silence.  We can call these people "Mystics."

Both of these camps undoubtedly have their strengths, and their own kind of wisdom, which is worth exploring and respecting.  But both are incomplete, and for the same reason, for they both make the same mistake.

Both the Mystics and the Hubristics regard language fundamentally as a given, static totality.  (Some of them have the decency to come by this honestly, expressly conceiving of language "synchronically".)  In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Nothing changes as much as language.  Language is constantly shifting, transforming, expanding, condensing, sliding in all directions. What is inexpressible in language at one time and place may suddenly or gradually become expressible.  (Is the reverse true? Are there things that formerly were expressible that become inexpressible?)  What both camps fail to see is themselves - their own agency (don't we all).  What they miss is that they, themselves, are creating language, whether they realize it or not, and they have the power to create language differently.

Wittgenstein has both Mystic and Hubristic tendencies, and he makes both Mystic and Hubristic errors.  Indeed, he makes perhaps the greatest possible error on this subject when he says, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence."  This sentence can be taken at least two ways - Mystically, and Hubristically - depending upon one's mood (and the underlying mood of this sentence may be, at least in part, inexpressible...).

In any case, precisely the opposite is true.  Those things that are currently inexpressible are the very things that call to us, more than anything else, to be expressed.  If that means we must come up with new names, new words, even a new grammar, then so be it.

A great artist makes art about that which cannot be expressed in words.  A great writer does this with words.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

Why I Love Religion

Image
  I'm too much of a materialist to agree with people like Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher and Sam Harris. They see world problems such as war, sexual repression, the oppression of women, terrorism, and so on as being caused by religion. As a materialist, I find the notion that an idea could cause these things to happen rather dubious. Dig a little deeper, and one always finds economic forces behind all of these problems.  Rather than scapegoating and blaming the existence of systemic problems on the interior beliefs and thoughts of individual human beings, I think it's a better use of our time to focus on how privilege and oppression can be embedded in structural institutions.  Religion isn't the enemy.  Indeed, by vilifying religion, we risk alienating ourselves from potential allies in the struggle against real material economic interests that run contrary to our own. My name is "Ian."  When I was growing up, this was an extremely unusual name.  No one that I
Read more