Cold opening: "thought will always go beyond words," and "cannot be reduced to the language that can be used to express it." Now, this is a neat trick, but by virtue of what principle is it possible?
Gödel?
No, we abuse his theorems enough around here. Nevertheless, rational thought reduces to reason, and is thus self-enclosed. It can result in a bigger tautology, but a tautology nonetheless. Let's ask Gemini:
- Thought Transcends Language: The assertion that thought goes beyond words is a core tenet of many philosophical traditions. It suggests that our minds are capable of generating ideas and concepts that may be difficult or impossible to fully express in language.
- Rational Thought and Tautology: The statement critiques rational thought for reducing complex ideas to logical propositions. While reason is a powerful tool, it can sometimes lead to oversimplification and a reliance on circular reasoning.
This perspective aligns with various philosophical schools, including:
- Mysticism: Mystics often emphasize the ineffable nature of ultimate reality, arguing that true spiritual understanding cannot be captured in words or concepts.
- Postmodernism: Postmodern thinkers often challenge the notion of a single, objective truth, arguing that language itself shapes our understanding of the world.
- Existentialism: Existentialists often highlight the unique and subjective nature of human experience, suggesting that individual thoughts and feelings cannot be fully understood through rational analysis.
Well, one out of three ain't bad. I don't mean to take his name in vain, but what about Gödel?
Yes, there is a connection between the concept of thought transcending language and Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Gödel's theorems essentially demonstrate that any formal system will inevitably contain statements that are true but unprovable within that system.
In other words, as per yesterday's post, truth and reality always transcend the forms in which they are clothed. The biggest conceivable tautology is still a self-enclosed tautology. Even Gemini knows that
There are inherent limits to formal systems, including language, in capturing the full spectrum of human thought. Our ability to express complex ideas and concepts through language is inherently limited, and there may be profound thoughts and insights that cannot be fully articulated in language.
In this sense, Gödel's theorems can be seen as supporting the idea that thought often surpasses the limitations of language.
Now, if something is actual, then it was possible. So, how is it possible for thought to surpass the limitations of language, i.e., to escape the tautologies of reason?
Well, alongside left-brained rational thought is right-brained "intuitive or participative thought," AKA "intellectual intuition" (Bérard), and these two are complementary, constituting the metabolism of being discussed yesterday.
I should add that Bérard doesn't say anything about right and left hemispheres. That was my own two senses. Better run it by Gemini:
Yes, there is a potential connection between the limitations of language and the differing functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain
Left Hemisphere: Primarily associated with language, logic, and analytical thinking.
Right Hemisphere: Often linked to spatial reasoning, intuition, creativity, and emotional processing.
It's possible that the RCH's more intuitive and holistic approach to understanding the world may generate insights that are difficult to fully articulate through language, which is primarily processed by the LCH. This could contribute to the idea that thought often transcends language, particularly when it involves complex, abstract, or emotionally charged concepts.
Well, good. Again, in my view this is precisely why we have these two complementary hemispheres, because reality is both horizontal and vertical, immanent and transcendent, and we are dynamically ordered to both.
In any event, "one's thinking is led to go beyond words"(Bérard). On the one hand (or hemisphere) "we have the rational knowledge of modern science," and on the other "metaphysical knowledge, which is realized through contemplation." And as we all know by now,
Without philosophy, the sciences do not know what they know.
But they do know what they know, hence verticality, transcendence, and intellectual intuition. Every scientist transcends science, even if he tries -- for some inscrutable reason -- to enclose himself in it.
Gemini, I reckon you know what I'm talking about?
Your statement suggests that even scientists, who often strive for objectivity and adhere to rigorous methods, ultimately transcend the boundaries of their discipline. It implies that their pursuit of knowledge often leads them to questions that go beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
Scientific breakthroughs often require innovative and creative thinking, which may involve intuition, imagination, and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. These qualities can transcend the rigid structures of scientific methodology.
By recognizing the limitations of scientific inquiry and embracing the broader context of human experience, scientists can transcend the boundaries of their discipline and contribute to a more holistic understanding of the world.
For Bérard, "schematics are useful, but dangerous; you can use them initially, but then have to go beyond them," and who could disagree? Not Gemini:
Absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. Schematics, models, and theories are powerful tools for understanding complex systems, but they are ultimately simplifications of reality. They can be incredibly useful for initial exploration and analysis, but they can also be misleading if we rely on them too heavily.
The map is not the territory?
Exactly. The phrase "the map is not the territory" is a powerful reminder that our representations of reality are not reality itself.
Which raises the question: if artificial intelligence can understand this, why can't real intellectuals get it? Truly truly, reality transcends tenure.
Absolutely. This statement highlights the idea that reality is constantly evolving and surpassing our attempts to define or control it. No matter how secure or established a position or belief system may seem, it is ultimately subject to the ever-changing nature of reality.
While tenure provides job security, it does not guarantee relevance or intellectual vitality. A tenured professor can become complacent or resistant to new ideas.
It was just a gag, but some gags are true.
