today our topic is language. again.
i realize our topic was language the day before and the day before that
and the one before the day before that and the one before the one, the one
twice before the one, and thrice, and so on past numbers into the realm of
infinite words, a realm that has been rumoured to be mythical but has not yet
been proven by scientists and others given to proving or trying to prove or
seeming to prove to be so or wholly so.
now in all these lessons in language – which consume our days to such an
extent that we could say our days are nothing but these lessons – in all this
time – which could be said to be such a continual consumption that it subverts
itself and is hardly time but far more words – have we learned anything? that we even have to ask the question is
disturbing and this feeling too we wonder about – wonder many things, but as an
instance, whether the disturbing nature of this question is in some manner
related (and, if so, how) to time … and, since time is only numbers and numbers
only words, more fundamentally to words:
in other words, whether language, though seeming to teach, actually
doesn’t. but this could be a difficult
thought – perhaps the most difficult – as haven’t we devoted history (and its associates: civilization, culture, war, government) to
developing language to teach, as a sort of replacement for nature, as nature
seemed not to teach anything (or at least anything we liked). so language, in offering the possibility of
teaching something (or at least something we liked), is turning out to teach us
nothing and nature (though who among us could speak authoritatively of nature
now, since nature too has simply become another word) is turning out (at least
as fully in memory as language is in hope) to have offered us something to be
taught. but all this seems
simultaneously too binary and confused to coalesce into anything we might
rightly call a lesson. yet we began by
not calling this a lesson but a topic and this is an important distinction. a lesson aims to teach us something, while a
topic is simply a topic and has no aims other than itself, which is to say no
aims. perhaps this is the frustration –
we want language to be a lesson while all it has the capacity for is being a
topic. or is it the topic? to speak so
definitively seems problematic, raising a grammatical issue of whether the
definite article is appropriate in matters outside the specific, sensuous, and
prosaic. we can obviously say – see the cat over there – without raising too
many issues. but as soon as we ask
whether language is a topic or the topic, whether that is a point or the point,
the’s inadequacies reveal themselves.
which should not stop us from asking, some of you might say, even as
others might say these problems and limits and questions have already been
discussed and yet we still are here, we still go on, language still is
language. so what can we conclude? nothing, certainly. but perhaps something, just to give us a
little morsel to chew provocatively even if it should give us some digestive
issues or make us throw up or possibly kill us.
or if something is a possibility, are not all possibilities possible and
so we could say nothing certainly and everything possibly and something not at all. but this is hardly satisfying. don’t we want something? yes, we could say, with perhaps almost as
much certainty as nothing. and so here
it is: this something, which has already
been offered, and is here again today, with our barely even having noticed.
22.12.15
today's topic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)