Art as the remainder of what language cannot express. Language and consciousness (24-02-2020)

(Second text published by Yatesbury. On Textup)

 

Dear Manuel R., your questions echo one of your earlier messages:

 

"Does a reflexive consciousness always need the help of a symbolic instrument (language in our case)?

How does the collective consciousness (CC) reflect?

Does it use "language" internally for its reflections?

Does language serve only to communicate with an "other", or does it allow one to talk to oneself?"

 

Remember:

 

Language is a means that allows the communication of information from the One to the Other. It is a tool. When the tool is imperfect, or when it fails, it does not allow optimal exchanges and the system cannot be HARMONIOUS and stable.

In general, it reflects the degree of perfection of the brains that developed it.

 

So "language" is not the WHOLE support of thought. It is indeed connatural to the evolution of the lineage of thinking beings.

 

You ask what the analogue of "language" is for the Collective Consciousness.

 

A "language" implies the emergence of communication with ANOTHER Collective Consciousness.

 

You understand perfectly the concept of the "emergence" or "arising" of a new property, qualitatively superior to the sum of those of its constituent elements (such as consciousness).

If you seem legitimately puzzled when it comes to picturing the extension of this process to the collective sphere, it is because you are one of its constituent elements, one of the nodes. Now, the emergent property of the whole necessarily transcends its constituents.

 

 

However, here too the laws of complexification apply. The network is constituted from the growing interactions of its elements. The first step is to become aware of the existence of the Other sphere, and then to make a first contact. Technology is one of the "emergent" properties of civilizations and becomes the initial element that allows connections (journeys).

 

On language and thought:

 

The properties (rules, laws) of a language limit, shape and condition thought. Rules and laws organize the structure of language.

Thought creates language, but language in turn shapes thought.

Language is above all a tool. It is a vehicle for thought, which allows the exchange of information from one node to another. It is a connection, a bridge, a branch of the network.

The One always addresses the Other.

Thought uses language, but is not limited to it.

Thought is not consciousness.

Thought is mechanical: images, words, memories, internal conversations, comparisons, evaluations. It needs time.

Consciousness is vision: complete perception, instantaneous understanding, at every moment, without restrictions, without projections, without distortions or conditionings. Consciousness can only be in the present. It is freedom.

 

"Does language serve only to communicate with an "other", or does it allow one to talk to oneself?"

 

=> When you talk to yourself: it is one "part" of you talking to another "part" of you. So there is a separation that results from thought.

 

Being conscious of oneself is a division that occurs through thought, language or image. It is a chronological process. One part observes another, which it takes as an OBJECT (etymologically "what is placed in front"). The important word here is "observes". Consciousness is not what observes; it IS the observation.

 

"Does a collective consciousness have "thought"? And if so, is that thought necessarily based on language? "

 

=> A collective consciousness accumulates and processes information; therefore it "thinks". It is not divided, so it does not "talk" to itself; it does not "need" a language.

 

"Can a hyper-collectivized and de-individualized ethnic group have an absolute communication tool, that is, can it inter-transmit its thoughts and associated emotions? Or are you speaking of an ethnic group that has a very high level of integration but fully preserves the individuality of its components? "

 

=> A defective tool will be a vector of losses (of information, of energy) and of disunions. It can accentuate dissensions and increase isolation. Isolation is not individuality.

Awareness of individuality necessarily implies apprehension of the other. An optimal communication tool favours the flourishing of the individual, in a balanced society.

 

"Would this non-communicable "remainder", resulting from the passage from the spiritual to the material, be cancelled out (to the point that the "emergence" giving rise to the appearance of that "remainder" disappears) for an ethnic group capable of a totally effective flow of information? Is that the question? Is that the answer (that the emergence of "art" would be cancelled out)? "

 

=> If there is a transmission from spiritual to spiritual, is there a "remainder"?