An important topic, this.

“Language in not a neutral conveyor of infinite communicative possibility, but an intelligence box. It is to be counted among the traps to be escaped. It is an Exit target — and exit is difficult.”

How can language be escaped? More specifically, does one not fall into the “trap” of language by using it? Is exit “possible” by any means save immortality?

“Among these rumblings, the most indefinite, tentative, and unresolved tend to the aesthetic. Without settled criteria of evaluation, there is little obvious basis for productive collision. Instead, there are idiosyncratic statements of appreciation, expressed as such, or adamant judgments of affirmation or negation, surging forth, draped in the heraldic finery of the absolute, before collapsing back into the hollowness of their unsustainable pretensions.”

Idiosyncratic statements tend to the aesthetic by virtue of the essential truths they reflect – as perceived by a single individual’s understanding. Truth, after all, is inherently so – and we all know that beauty, like some other things, are aligned with truth. There’s nothing wrong with clarity per se, but it should be obvious that the more essential is a truth, the more indefinitely it can possibly be expressed.

two snippets for further elucidation….

1

It has been said that there is an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry. Understanding how man’s notions of philosophy and poetry have evolved since this observation was first made illustrates not only the veracity but also the irony of it.

It’s not that some regard rhetoric, once known as poetry, as futile or revelation, once understood to be philosophy, as instructive; it’s that they are inherently so. To the extent that its basis in divine revelation remains intact and pure, rhetoric is, in fact, poetic.

[…]

Whereas sufficiently fundamental intuition could have once been conveyed with so few words so as to remind how a single Hebrew word could mean both inspiration and intuition, this writer confesses a peculiar pride born of his capacity to understand why for himself such discursive prose is as elegantly clarifying in pursuit of that same end as it is eminently gratifying. Though he has sought to cleanse himself of sophistry – and with no small degree of pride claims some success in that task – this writer nonetheless accepts his stain of sin as a consequence of his being and embarks upon writing not as proud enunciation of truth or even virtuous proclamation of insight but only as pleasurable vice.

http://deductiveprosecutions.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-old-quarrel-by-way-of-introduction.html

2

Every communication betrays implicit meaning just as every action betrays implicit intention – at least slightly. Moreover, not only is communication recognized as one specific form of action just as (implied) meaning is recognized as one specific form of intention, but every action must be interpreted as communication – even if only in hindsight – just as every intention must be interpreted as (implied) meaning – even if only in hindsight. Self-interest is justly assumed in any interpretation of implied meaning or intention, for nothing more thoroughly permeates or vigorously impels all human action.

Man’s mortality is the child of his self-interest and the mother of his sociability, which know the two twin needs of his being: to survive and to subdue. It is by his need to survive that his intention to advance his self-interest is communicated by his every action and it is by his need to subdue that implicit meaning imbues his every communication.

Time solves what reason cannot – especially the is-ought fallacy, which could never have occurred to any being but one that both experiences time and possesses reason – which is to say a mortal one. The mortal being must act across time and the social being must communicate by action. In sum, man communicates that which ought to be by necessity in two fundamental ways: by his inevitable action that inherently communicates and by his inevitable communication that inherently implies (meaning). And so it is that an intuitive proof of the Mandate of Heaven is apparent to each man insofar as these twin necessities merge in his mind into that single ineffable way of being that, avoiding explicit communication as such by judicious prejudice, distinguishes the few from the many: aligning with the Creator so fully so as to communicate only by the implied meaning of action is an unintended consequence of complete devotion to one’s own kingdom. This is the manner of virtue, the wellspring of order, the imprint of sovereignty: Kingship.

http://deductiveprosecutions.blogspot.com/2014/02/kingship.html

Now that’s the science. Recent BTW.

“Most dyslexics are not aware that this is what they are doing. Since dyslexics think in pictures or imagery, they tend to use global logic and reasoning strategies.” – Davis Dyslexia

http://www.davisdyslexia.com/big_picture.html

And

http://www.masteringdyslexia.com/index.php/about/understanding-dyselxia/

“Disorientation — When dyslexics are confused (or curious) they might mentally look at objects, words, or ideas from many angles. We call this disorientation.”

@Admin might be something there for you to explore – “Disorientation”.

If not, you’re welcome.

If so, uhh, well, good one.

Much later in Experience and Judgement, language is understood as a “mere mode of sense”.

Husserl makes the distinction between logic and language, whereby the later is limited to
representation to the other (intending meaning, in a Welt der Vernunft), but the former functions without attaching importance to linguistic “material”.

For the life of me though, I could never find a real example from Husserl on the inseparability of language and logic, hence “exit is difficult”.

Still, it always felt warm to read things like “human thinking is normally done in language, and all the activities of reason (Welt der Vernunft) are as good as entirely bound up with speech.” – Husserl (Formal and Transcendental Logic, II). While the limits of my language are the limits of my world, these limits are only and merely mine.

Democracy is another instance. Obviously a well-run, healthy society will probably have lots of popular support, and if there were an election the leadership would be ratified. So, lets have elections, and whoever gets voted in will naturally have popular support and create a well-run healthy society! That hasn’t worked out, which is why the left has added Citizens United and the Koch Brothers to their demonology. For a movement without Gods, they sure do have a lot of devils.