SQN - Sine Qua Non - Issue 1 - Journal - Page 38
Human languages have a built-in limitation: they do not promise complete transparency.
This only means that the scope for misunderstanding exists within any act of communication,
depending on what meanings we might assign to a statement or a situation. Alternatively, we
cannot think of a dialogue without words, except when cold silences or ecstatic moments
fill the spaces between one line and another. Words are essential, yet we acknowledge their
limitations.
How we use words to fulfill both the practical goal of being able to think and write clearly and
the philosophical goal of being able to raise the right kinds of questions with regard to our existence
as social beings matters—both of them equally.
Because of our extraordinary dependence on language, every object becomes a text
simply because we describe its features using words in our heads. No object exists in a
vacuum. Culture and society give the object a sense of reality that it would otherwise not
possess on its own. A sense of reality emerges from the words we use to speak about objects.
Every description is a step forward in illuminating something about the world. How would
we know that such a world exists except through language? To what extent does language
determine the meanings that emerge from the world? To what extent is the world impinging
on our ability to use language to articulate profound truths about life? Do we need to describe
the specific contexts in which we use each word, or are words themselves objects in their own
right? What are the subtexts or secondary-level meanings of the words we habitually employ
in response to external inputs?
Words are more than just instruments for thoughts; they also contain vivid descriptions of life
as it goes on.
The relationship between a piece of writing and a reader is by definition an emotional
one as much as it is linguistic, where words assert their presence in the face of human feelings
like the tango of two in a ballroom or in the way actors do when confronted with the
non-professional acting of real people. Without always being assertive, words that indicate
feeling can sometimes border on sentimental. Sentimentalism, often dismissed as corny,
doesn't particularly repulse me. A natural part of growing up is to wallow in self-pity and/or
unrequited love. What is worse than sentimentalism is indifference, whether towards oneself
or another person. Relationships lack a universal theory; people do not fall in love after
reading a book titled “How to fall in love in thirty days without losing your mind.” If your
mind is still intact, you can be sure that you haven’t fallen in love. Even after reading a book
that clearly states in bold letters that you are looking at a person, not an idea, one could still
fall in love. Perhaps the emotion is not solely expressed through words.
The individual is not reducible to a stereotype but rather a reality with a capital ‘R’.
This is why it is challenging to be appreciative of literature or literary works where the
author sits in judgment and summons the characters to do his or her bidding. These are not
characters; they are simply dead leaves tucked away between the pages of books, perfect for a
15
