File spoon-archives/blanchot.archive/blanchot_1997/blanchot.9711, message 15


Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:46:55 -0500
Subject: MB: Communication
From: saks1-AT-juno.com (Samuel J Saks)


Edward, you wrote:

(1)"Inner communication, the private 
language of gnosis, is the only TRUE communication, for it all takes 
place within ...

(2) I would qualify your statement, however, by saying that the 
fact that communication can be misunderstood is the very POSSIBILITY of 
communication."

The above is, I admit, somewhat out of context (and the numbers are mine)
but I think by comparing the  two remarks you made I can make a point for
the validity of imperfect communication. You agree that there is such a
thing as TRUE communication (let us for the moment disregard where it
takes place) and therefore if TRUE communication is possible I will
assume you have some experience with it (in your view it takes place
within yourself and since you are obviously very intelligent I don't
think this is a wild assumption). So you do have a way to compare perfect
communication with imperfect communication, namely (again all according
to you) within yourself. Therefore I can say that there is such a thing
as imperfect communication that is communication nonetheless. All this is
staying within (I think, at least) you own views. Therefore a text might
communicate something to you not as perfectly as you can communicate it
to yourself but you can judge and understand how close it was to your own
personal communication. 

Now let me step out of your view, or rather let us discuss your views.

you say:
"I am a solipsist, plain and simple, and I communicate with my illusions.
 
Everything that I receive is appropriated by me -- therefore, everything 
is WITHIN me ..."

It is a well known fact that solipsim is immposible to disprove and I
won't (and have no motivation) to try. But allow me some space to think
something through (not necessarily only  regarding your remark quoted
above). Let's see PURE or PERFECT (question: I assume you use these terms
as equivalent in our discussion, is this the case??) communication is
possible only internally. What is internally? Within oneself. What is
oneself? A tough question. Well what can we agree on as "oneself" or at
least what is the part(s) of "oneself" we mean here. Well we can't be
talking about organs for I don't communicate with my organs. Wait yes I
do. Swift electric pulses shoot back and forth from them all the time.
But this is not the communication we are talking about here. Okay, so I
must not be communicating with my organs. What about my hands and feet?
Well they are equivalent to organs are they not? Yes. Therefore we must
not be talking about them either here. Okay. So am I communicating with
my brain? Well  in the sense that a brain is an organ, no. All that's
being communicated is short electric signals. Then I must not be talking
about any physical matter. Okay. So then what am I communicating with,
when there is communication within "oneself." Ahh, perhaps the content of
my brain. That is interesting, for in so far as my brain understands all
these electric signals then it is in communication with them. What is the
content of my brain? Ask your local phenomenologist. Forget him right
now. Let us figure it out (at least in part). Well the content of my
brain is a mess of  memories, thoughts, emotions, sense data. Okay. But
what are thoughts if you don't remember them or emotions if you don't
feel them? Answer: sense data. Fine. One of the contents of my brain I
must deal with is sense data. But just how do I know them without
interpreting them? Just what seperates the green leaves of a tree from
the black bark, why is it a tree at all? Ahh so I must be interpreting
them somehow. But how? With what? Emotions. Well maybe but then these
emotions must be also be understood for what seperates hate from love?
There must be something I use to seperate these things or at least make
sense out of them but just what is it? Ahh, perhaps language. Yes, with
language I can call my emotions something, keep track of my thoughts,
point to sense data again and again, and I have a device for remembering
things for comparison and contrast, synthesis and antithesis. Yes
language. But where did I get this from? The serpent's gift. The
seduction of Eve. Perhaps it was worth it after all to get booted from
Eden for look what we got in return. For what can we do in Eden if we
don't know what's going on? Anyway let us get back on track. So we
communicate to ourselves with language, or at least language assists us
greatly. The question again: Where did language come from? Ourselves?
Others? It can't be completely from ourselves for the terms "you" and
"he/she" and "it" are essential, or how are we to seperate things, make
distinctions. Without others everything is I. It is here that our reach
exceeds our grasp and there is no heaven to save us. We see someone else.
They approach from the shadows. It is horrible, inside their heads buzz
the same signals and yet they are not me nothing like me, in all ways
seperate and distinct. It is horrible and scary. This is the origin of
language, at least so I tend to think. Do you agree? (or rather just how
do you disagree?)

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005