Supposing the world is made of aphorisms, what's the first one?
Bear in mind that in order to qualify as a first rate aphorism, it can't merely be true. Anyone can speak truth, assuming he's not a journalist or regime operative (but I repeat myself). Rather, it must be witty, ironic, and maybe even a bit pointy: In the beginning is the Word, and OUCH!
Also, anyone can fake intelligence. But there's no such thing as fake wit. Ideally our aphorisms must provoke the guffah-HA! experience, which is a rare quality, hence the highly selective appeal of my audience.
Perhaps you've never noticed the quote by Wittgenstein above the comment box: A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. I just looked up his Top 25 quotes, the funniest now being this one:
When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote.
You think I'm funny? That I'm here to amuse you?
I don't know why we're here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves.
I'm sorry to hear that.
My day passes between logic, whistling, going for walks and being depressed.
I suspect logic won't get you out of this predicament, Ludwig.
I wish to God that I were more intelligent and that everything would finally become clear to me -- or else that I needn't live much longer.
If I were a clinical psychologist -- well, first I'd ask if you have a plan and a means -- but I would innocently wonder out loud if lack of intelligence might not be the *real* problem.
The limits of my language means the limits of my world.
Well, yes and no. If that were the case, you wouldn't even know of the world.
All I know is what I have words for.
Oh please. Don't enclose yourself in absurcularity.
Is my understanding only blindness to my own lack of understanding? It often seems so to me.
That's what we in the business call a baby step.
Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only.
Where did that come from? No, "betwixt the Almighty & me" doesn't mean only only betwixt em' -- it doesn't work that way, even -- or especially -- in the Godhead. Professor Wiki tells me you have an interest in Catholicism. Tell me about that....
Well, that was an unexpected deitour.
Yesterday I spent the day whistling past the grooveyard, going for a swim, and consulting with Nicolás to identify his most purely metaphysical aphorisms. In so doing we had to bypass all the ones touching on art, literature, politics, ethics, history, et al.
Here is a good place to begin, only insofar as it tells us where not to begin:
The scientific encyclopedia will grow indefinitely, but about the very nature of the universe it will never teach anything different from what its epistemological assumptions teach.
As to the overall purpose of... of my mission from God, or at least what we works out betwixt us,
Today we require a methodical introduction to that vision of the world outside of which religious vocabulary is meaningless. We do not talk of God with those who do not judge talk about the gods as plausible.A vision of the world outside of which religion makes no sense. That's a bingo.
Now, this vision must be capacious enough to contain everything. But it must do so in a coherent manner. It can't be just a pile of unrelated stuff.
Indeed, to say coherent is to say related, and the latter is KEY, and here is an aphorism that may seem to come out of left field, but is actually a grand slam over the left (or any other) field wall:
Metaphor supposes a universe in which each object mysteriously contains the others.
For now we're not only using language to dig beneath, behind, below, and above language, but to advert to what language is in its essence, and why we even have it.
Yes, Ludwig?
The limits of the world are also the limits of logic.
Oh bullshit, Wittgenstein. There you go again. --Gödel
He who adopts a system stops perceiving the truths that are within his reach.
Ludwig, you spoke of walking with logic. You might consider walking with the Almighty in order visit the place where all the logic comes from, otherwise you're just whistling in the dark:
God is the region that one who walks forward finally reaches. One who does not walk in circles.
And while walking, please remember, you're plenty smart enough, doggone it. That's not the issue, for
Intelligence knows no barriers, but it has stairs.
Yeah, well, when we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote.
That was amusing the first time you said it, Ludwig, but you know as well as I that your cynical devaluation of therapy is just a defense mechanism. Our time is up. See you again tomorrow morning.
5 comments:
Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only.
That sounds incredibly isolating. Not to mention selfish. Imagine knowing that God Is, and then refusing to, for instance, teach you children this pertinent fact.
I’ve always preferred Balthasar Gracians aphorisms, sometimes Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. They provide bits of practical advice for the group-minded empath who has no choice but to become a warrior in a human world dominated by sociopathic power players, but who also doesn’t want to completely abandon a Christian sense of decency.
Davila is more about ‘reality acceptance’ aphorisms which are mostly aimed at wimps who have the means to avoid leaving the comfort of some personal library because of either their own wealth, or the shared wealth found in monestaries or insular christian tribes such as the Amish or evangelical communities. I’ve known many of their kind. If tossed out into the open sea alone, they pretty much do one of three things:
1. Try to find like-minded others hoping to achieve a “safety in numbers” situation.
2. Lay low and bottom feed.
3. Ally with the prevailing sociopathic powers that be and rationalize, scapegoat, and rationalize.
For better managed times we do have Christian-influenced aphorisms along the lines of “There but for the Grace of God goes thee” or “Try to leave this world a better place than you found it” or even “Imagine whirled peas” as well as a very large number of inspirational Bible verses. But we’re not living in such times anymore and even many Christians will deem you some form of "the other" if you're not careful.
The writer should know that only a few of the many who look at him see him.
That's a good one; how much more so for the Author of authors?
For that matter, how many people ever really see one, and how many people does one ever properly see?
If an author falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, has he even written anything at all?
Nicolás, I look forward to your series about living one's best life (spiritually and materially), especially the parts where we can best avoid the terrible temptations of wanting to be the opposite sex. I can handle all the other stuff.
Post a Comment