We find it reasonable and easy to answer certain direct questions about things we see around us. But the same ease and rationale fails us when we ascend further to the domain of persons and non-material realities.
Why does this biscuit exist?
Why does this bulb exist?
Why does this car exist?
Why does this building exist?
Why does this office exist?
Why do I exist?
Why does the world exist?
Why does anything exist at all?
Note the increasing difficulty in answering the above set of questions. Why so?
The more distanced and uninvolved we stay, the easier to answer. The more intimate and involved we get, the more difficult it gets to answer.
Gets us back to 'know thyself'. Same with language.
Perhaps we have been answering the wrong question all along: instead of answering what it IS we have been answering what it DOES. We have been answering 'what does language do?' rather than 'What IS language?'. We have equated DOES and IS.
Perhaps we don't have an access point beyond 'does'. To answer, 'is' we need to get out of language. (Do we?) And there is no 'getting out of language'.
Why does this biscuit exist?
Why does this bulb exist?
Why does this car exist?
Why does this building exist?
Why does this office exist?
Why do I exist?
Why does the world exist?
Why does anything exist at all?
Note the increasing difficulty in answering the above set of questions. Why so?
The more distanced and uninvolved we stay, the easier to answer. The more intimate and involved we get, the more difficult it gets to answer.
Gets us back to 'know thyself'. Same with language.
Perhaps we have been answering the wrong question all along: instead of answering what it IS we have been answering what it DOES. We have been answering 'what does language do?' rather than 'What IS language?'. We have equated DOES and IS.
Perhaps we don't have an access point beyond 'does'. To answer, 'is' we need to get out of language. (Do we?) And there is no 'getting out of language'.
No comments:
Post a Comment