No, I do not say that an ultimate relativism or a final subjectivism should come to force, I am saying that I want to be aware that truth outside the language entities, outside sentences does not exist, that:
“To say that the world is out there, that it is not our construction, means to say, according to common sense, that most of the things in the space and time are consequences of the reasons that do not involve human mental states. To say that the truth is not out there means simply that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that the sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human constructions. Truth can not be out there – it can not exist independently from human mind – because the sentences can not exist in such a way, or be out there. The world is out there, but the descriptions of the world are not. Only the descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world in itself – unassisted by the describing activities of the human creatures can not”.7F
Instead of going back in an attempt to locate a source of the existing, we need a multitude of rivers of thoughts that flow in the same river, which will not increase the power of logocentrism, but they will be different language truths, multitude of language truths that will make a restored river deep and rich with life, and not a dead one, static and filled with various toxi-thought waste of the industry of consciousness…
I was reprimanded for not making any direct correlation between theory and practice. I have to notice that in the are of social activity of the individual this does not apply, and it is more obvious in the areas of political-social practice. The theory is the one that gives the frame and direction of thinking, as well as the equation that determines the parameters, that is, the borders of the action requested by the individual. If we ask some man according to the “instruction” (read: “equation” – which in this case gives the frame with thinking parameters) to distinguish even from odd numbers, to write all odd numbers to hundred and one, why does he continue counting further, hundred and three, hundred and five, etc?
It is the same with all discourses, they give the framework in which they look for a certain way of action and behavior on the side of the individual, as well as a given goal that should be achieved, but the individual always continues by inserting (seemingly new)8F value elements outside the given framework.9F
What must not be forgotten is that it is that framework that is responsible for starting a process of actions that would by all means go beyond the given framework. This bridging, by the individual who acts, of the inter-axiological abyss is part of the logical process of thinking that is the foundation of the notional process of thinking, part of the training where the person trained is no longer at the training field and he is expected, based on the training acquired, to handle in a newly occurred situation. We remain at the conclusion of a situation that indicates that what we always try to transfer like a theoretical framework of a certain individual cognitive experience, manages to get away from the cognitor, precisely with its specific of contingent and unrepeatable individual cognitive act.
I am not saying that there should be a control over the validity of the thoughts of the individuals and their way of thinking about the world, I am speaking about the need of locating and differentiating the intra-language linguistic-social constructions of reality that produce violence regardless of the form of theoretical discourses in which they appear.
Each language project is a project that is a subject to potential additions in the lexicology and movements of the meanings that are of asynchronous character, and which will cause additional unpredictable additional of the meanings. We can not determine the exact moment of occurrence of the language and the origin of the idea of its functional usage, nor the success of this idea.
Language as a code is abundant in language viruses10F that are subject to and transparent of the constant language mutation, that is, it always escapes the attempt to be tamed and it remains open and subject to new mutation at each additional shaping.
The one who has been trained, after he had expanded and added to the value frame of action, starts to train others, but he does not stop expanding its own frame while training.
Can the individual have an ultimate awareness about the theory frame in which he acts? He can not and will not!
There is an awareness needed about who creates the frame, if it s heritage from a higher instance that tells us realize me, or if it is a linguistic-social construction that is no more valuable than the other linguistic-social constructions and it is only my personal product. So, I am completely responsible and i have no other criterion that I can use to judge somebody’s life story or project except whether it involves violence in its realization or not. Everything that is used to reach for somebody’s integrity (corporal intellectual, emotional…) by violence and imposing in utterly inhumane.
“Man is free to be free” (Nelson Mandela), I would say; man is additionally free11F to become aware of his virtual position in the world of discourses that is also virtual. Most important of all is to understand the virtuality of the discourses of truth.
Everything is possible and everybody is right, but not because truth gives them legitimacy and it is on their side supporting tem to play messiahs or apostles of truth.
“Where there is violence there is no politics, that is, there is no political life, and ultimately, there is no man”.12F
The game “get the truth and own it” should be replaced with the game “understand the truth as a field for the game and reshape it”, or “accept the emptiness and fill it in with meaning consciously”…
Translated by Elizabeta Bakovska
#b
7. See: Richard Rorti, Kontingentnost, ironija i solidarnost (Skopje: Templum, 2001) str.22. where he speaks of truth only as a language entity, and not as something outside language, immanent to the world that itself has a language that it addresses us in.
8. According to Wittgenstein’s indication of familiar similarities they are not new, and therefore, they are “seemingly” new values.
9. Using the equation for training and action of the value frame in which the individual has been trained.
10. Language virus is a word, term in general that has already gone through a process of unpredictable addition in its meaning, and which is further a subject of the same endless process.
11. In the meaning of unused capacity of the complete human knowledge and horizons that it opens in a pragmatic frame of thinking.
12. Put in the context of Aristotle’s understanding of politics, as a non-violent way of surviving in community with the others, constantly in a dialogue and agreement without applying violent means and methods. Wherever there is violence there is no human behavior, there is only a pre-political state, wilderness. See: Branislav Sarkanjac, Makedonski Katahrezis (Skopje: 359º, 2001) str.137.