Drifting Eagles

real 3

“Philosophy is merely a byproduct of misunderstanding language.” -Wittgenstein

There is most likely not another statement that is so truthful to me than this one. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that it illustrate my stance on philosophy perfectly. I know it sounds ruthless and dismal but think about it: Of all the possible avenues that philosophy could have taken, all the possibilities when it comes to language itself, or way of classifying words into families. All these things are taken for granted, as if they could never have been any different but really, they are simply part of the infinite possibilities of attributes that lied there, waiting to be used or ignored. We went with this, and then that, leading ultimately to what we currently have and it is not perfect at all. In fact, it is barely functional, hence why philosophy and most other categories (ism) are comparable to a labyrinth, with plenty of dead-ends.

So what is left? Well everything when you think about it but our approach to philosophy, the way we treat it should be drastically different. We should thread with discipline and determination but also with serenity and laughter. In the light of what we have seen, (and will continue to discover) it is clear that world versions are man-made, crafted purposefully and shall not deliver the pinnacle of truth. I recently told a friend that:

“We are like eagles floating in the skies, we have all these clouds to choose from, to decide where we will be heading next. Naturally, whether we know we are most likely wrong or not, we have to make a decision and still drift toward the cloud(s) that seems to make the most sense, (Category or World version) otherwise we would be floating idly without ever committing to anything”.

This process is personal and continuous, for many, it might be religion, to some others, spirituality or science. There is plenty of clouds to choose from and all of them come with a plurality of pros & cons. Whether some clouds are better than others (leveled relativism) is yours to decide. Goodman seemed to think that way, comparing paradigms to maps. Some of them just seems superior to others in terms of preciseness, quality, depth (…) For example: Science > Creationism. Wittgenstein on the other hand would quickly condemn subjective words as being mostly useless (soul, spirit, ego…) 

Personally, what I discovered is that, there is a tremendous importance in the unseen. The things that lies beyond our philosophical byproduct(s), our language and our limited perceptive tools. What truly seems to come back forefront is the wordless (In a Myattian sense). What is personal, what we are unable to define with words but seems to make life worth it. There is no amount of pondering and reasoning that can awaken what the practical life can. Of course, I am absolutely not condemning the intellectual efforts, these are required more than ever to give new meanings, new definitions, more precision, to alter everything we thought we knew so well.

A dialogue in the Matrix movie, between a program and Neo expressed the importance of the wordless accurately:

Program: I love my daughter very much!

Neo: I had never heard a program talk about love. It is a human emotion.

Program: No, it is a word. What matters is the connexion that word implies. I can see that you are in love. What would you give for that connexion to go on?

Neo: Everything.

That connection we have to concepts might vary for everyone. This way, there might be a plurality of perceptive dimensions to concepts (no one seeing it the same way or wanting the same thing). A bit like a field of grass, all growths being part of the greater entity that is the field but all different in various ways. In the light of all of this, I cannot torture myself with philosophy anymore, I see it for what it is, which would be another, bigger paradigm, an attribute of reason. And maybe after all, what was the closest, the most ignored was what made the most sense? That little voice inside, your own numinous wyrd maybe? I still do not know, but I listen closely now. Can I define love better than ever before? No. Is my perception of love superior to everyone else? No. Would I still give everything for it, even though I do not understand it entirely? Absolutely.

Reason will need to be patient when it comes to certain things, in the measure of numinosity or what feels numinous.

-Beldam, 128 yf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s