fallen verses

I wrote this for my other blog, ineffably.net, but I thought someone might find this of interest here as well.

I wonder, sometimes, if people don’t view the word “ineffable” in the same light that I do. If it may be seen as undesirable, a lack, a failing. In some ways, it is a failing–a failing in language to communicate something*. I don’t think this is a bad thing, I place it more in the category of the sublime*.

Perhaps as technology marches onward and carries into more facets of our lives, it is frightening to think there are aspects of existence that words cannot encompass. Despite the ability to use audio and video, the internet is still, largely a text-based medium, and as more and more of our lives become caught up in its web**, we limit and restrict that aspects of our lives that cannot fit within the framework.

I’m reading Poetry and Consciousness by C.K.Williams and he begins that essay with a similar point. Language does not have the capacity to describe some elements of life, viz. emotion. As he says, we can call something sadness or depression, we can describe what seems to be the physical experience of them, we can talk about the reasons and effects of these emotions, but language cannot describe of the emotion qua emotion. Ultimately emotions can be talked about, can be talked around, but can’t be talked. Ineffable***. We can say fear is a cold knot in the stomach, but that doesn’t include the sharp stabs of terror when that fear may be actualized before we can think. And even then, what is the experience of that fear?

People can be understood. the actions of large groups are easy to understand. groups don’t have the same level of choice and valuation that individuals have. But an individual is so much more difficult to encompass.

The experience of an other is something that exists outside the realm of words. Sure, we can impart categories to people as we do to emotions. They can be funny or smart or cynical. They can be blonde. They can be slender. They can enjoy Mexican cuisine. They use a lexicon that is individual but listable. Their Her**** hair can have the smell of faded roses when you first smell it in the morning.

So go ahead, describe the person you love. I’d bet you can come up with a lengthy list of traits and historical facts. And I’d go further to bet that, no matter the length, that list fails at explaining that person. To paraphrase Viktor Frankl: Love is what allows us to experience an other in their uniqueness. I wouldn’t call it their soul (because I am not religious), but perhaps their logos*.

And that is something about each of us that transcends the descriptive capacity of language. It is something that can only be experienced, and only then, through love.

* Ineffable; Sublime; Logos (though Anima may be as usable)

** See what I did there: it’s after my bedtime, bad puns are excusable.

*** Yes, my love of this word is irrational. Most words I love are smoother, more elegant. Ineffable, pronounced as it should be, is clumsy. It’s the sound of a sweatshirt, not the smooth glide of hand over satin-clad curves.

**** Screw being gender-neutral. This really isn’t gender neutral in its explanation, though it is in its essence.

About the author tom:

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.