Inarticulation

Without any articulation at all, we would lose all contact with the good, however conceived. We would cease to be human. (Sources of the Self, pg. 96 by Charles Taylor) Discuss.”

Who am I? Where am I? What is the Good? And why am I asking these questions? Our capacity to utter sentences that carry a deep sense of longing and meaning is a timeless mystery and treasure of human consciousness. Language is deeply embedded in our understanding of the world and of ourselves; so much so that a surge of perplexity arises when one finds themselves pondering a world without words. Ludwig Wittgenstein famously said: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” While the constraining aspect of this statement may propel an individual to accept the notion that language is a barrier towards understanding the true nature of reality; one can certainly also appreciate the powerful insight that the statement itself evokes. Thus, it becomes evident then, that language is both: a bridge and a barrier. This tension between opposite poles, and the space inbetween, where the lines of duality are blurred, is known to be a paradox. 

In logical terms, a paradox is considered to be an invalid statement. However, ancient traditions such as Zen Buddhism, value and utilize paradoxes in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of the human condition through meditation. Thus, although one dimension (logic) indicates that paradoxes are “invalid,” another dimension (meditation) sheds light on the fact that paradoxes are “truth.” One could assume that the dimension of logic coincides with practicality while the dimension of meditation aligns with spirituality. In regards to language, the world of practicality seems to necessitate articulation in the form of words; while spirituality can help liberate the mind from the structures of thought and language, allowing for a form of articulation that goes beyond words. 

As modern beings, many of us spend our lives dancing between practicality and spirituality, always in search for an equilibrium. However, despite the fact that both dimensions are opposing each other, the dynamic interplay can give rise to a beautiful tension. I believe this tension is an indication of a moral source; the paradox is the moral background. By articulating this in the form of words, I am giving the idea of a paradoxical moral background power. Charles Taylor also elucidates on this point: “A formulation has power when it brings the source close, when it makes it plain and evident, in all its inherent force, its capacity to inspire our love, respect, or allegiance. An effective articulation releases this force, and this is how words have power.” However, I am inclined to attribute power to the opposite pole as well: wordless articulation. Since I am claiming that moral sources may be embedded within a paradoxical framework, I must assign value to both mediums through which we come to understand our moral sources: articulation as well as inarticulation.  

While it is challenging to write about the power of inarticulation through the medium of words, I will do my best to articulate the inarticulacy of our relationship to the good within the paradoxical framework. According to Taylor, the evolution and unfolding of the self can be understood through our relationship with hypergoods. He writes, “Hypergoods are generally a source of conflict. The most important ones, those which are most widely adhered to in our civilization, have arisen through a historical supersession of earlier, less adequate views.” Thus, as an old vision of the good dissolves into a new vision of the good, the self begins to constellate itself accordingly. The conflict between hypergoods can also be understood through the lens of Hegel’s dialectic in the form of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Ultimately, the brewing of a paradox is what gives birth to a new question, a new theory, a new idea, and a new self. 

The dialectic may be deeply embedded within a process of articulation, but it can do so only because it is also in a dynamic interplay with the activity of inarticulation. For instance, monks who commit their lives to silent meditation are undeniably in contact with the good. In fact, one could also assert that the very act of inarticulation creates a hypergood of emptiness for the monks. The dynamic interplay arises when an insight has occurred through inarticulation, which then gets transmitted through language in the form of articulation. The articulation then, aids further in the practice of inarticulation, which ultimately gives rise to a feedback loop between the two forms. 

Taylor does touch on this feedback loop in regards to ideas and structures, as he writes: “We very often can’t fully understand these ideas if we think them in isolation from the practices. For instance, an important relation links the Lockean notion of “possessive individualism” I described earlier and the economic practices of capitalist, market society. But this relation mustn't be confused with a unidirectional causal one. It is just as important to note the way in which this self-understanding smoothed the way for an extension of market relations as it is to point to the way that the increased penetration of markets made it natural for people to see themselves this way. The causal arrow runs in both directions.” So although he doesn’t necessarily equate structures to inarticulation, he gives credit to a reflexive understanding of ourselves in the context of the world. As Richard Tarnas also stated: “Worldviews create worlds, but worlds also create worldviews.” Herein lies the wisdom of the paradoxical framework: one attains full capacity to hold multiple poles of doubt, while also gaining a cosmic view of one’s self. Instead of a conflict between hypergoods, we could begin to have a participation between hypergoods. Thus, no one hypergood has to be put on a pedestal, and a fully integrated understanding of morality can potentially take place. 

The cosmos reveals a deeper understanding of paradoxical frameworks in the form of analogies: the exploding energy of the universe that is simultaneously bonded together by the force of gravity. These opposing forces in an intricate balance, are what give rise to galaxies. Certainly, the notion that the universe is expanding into infinity can be understood as an idea of becoming. While gravity, which is holding the explosive energy together can be understood as being. Similarly, the sense of becoming can also be aligned with articulation; as the conflict of hypergoods is in a dialectical process, a sense of becoming is formulated through the very act of articulation. The idea of being then, is within the dimension of inarticulation. As with the example of the monk and silent meditation, the activity of inarticulation allows for one to just be. 

Thus, I agree and disagree with the notion that: “Without any articulation at all, we would lose all contact with the good, however conceived. We would cease to be human.” Rather, I would state that articulation is inextricably connected to inarticulation, and vice versa; and therefore, without a paradoxical moral background, we could potentially lose contact with the good. Would we cease to be human without articulation and inarticulation of the good? Well, that’s a paradoxical question.