9. Effing The Ineffable
Podcast: Download (21.7MB)
This time we’re drawing on our roots in academia and religious studies and asking whether or not it’s possible to study the ineffable? Thanks to Keith Nightingale ( a real life Ho-tai) for letting use his title. Music from Whatthe Animalssay a kind of lap-top recording, globe-trotting, troubadour. It would be great to get some feedback on this topic as its close to our hearts. Feel free to comment and question below.
May 11th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Communication? Before analysing communication, don’t you want to know if there is any other with whom you may communicate?
I love the scene in Mike’s head: leaving the classroom.
But tricky question: when i try to be another, am i not myself trying to be another? :)
May 14th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Hi Mike and Tom,
this was an excellent post and I listened to it thrice, and was fully engaged and elucidated with each listen. You’ve really tried to tackle an absolutely fundamental principle which concerns a much greater scope and range than what should be expected of this podcast, and although I’m hardly a scribe I would suggest there is a publication in the ideas you’re tackling than the hardy worthy drivel being pummeled out of the Guardian let alone the Sun (by the way avi(o)d readers, I live in Melbourne Australia).
High praise. High high high praise.
However… my tea party friend Benjamin who doesn’t answer responses and still feels it necessary to comment nonetheless is, unfortunately, the only question we have to begin the conversation.
Ben… Benny Benny Benny Ben Benjamin… Communication? Haven’t we covered this? Your dogmatic love of non-communication is a sore point here… It is actually quite simple Ben. If there is no ‘other’ to communicate with, STOP communicating and let the rest of us work it out whilst you’re high up on some precipice, in one, or observing one from your laptop.
Coming from a teaching background I’d either eject you from the classroom or tell you not to come to the class anymore. This be a place for thoughtful consideration and seriousness.
And the last answer to your silly apparently paradoxical pseudo-phenomenology: When you try to be another, you are trying to be another. Yes. We’re all aware of the concept of the subject here.
Engage in the debate Ben, don’t try to destroy it with irrelevant cliches or bad puns. Take your ordinariness more seriously and engage with what Tom and Mike are saying.
End of lesson.
May 14th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I loved the ‘classroom’ scene too. And it was great to hear how the university experience eventually led a couple of people at least to an understanding that runs deeper than knowledge. My own experience in academia was very different.
May 15th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Dear Pete,
First of all thank you for your humbling me to the role of your student. Your feedback, including the obvious attempt at provoking an aggressive emotional response, is appreciated in many ways. I feel however obliged to repay you with questions (these are meant for you really, the conclusions you hold onto are yours only eventually).
First I do not perceive in my comment any form of love of non-communication. There is merely a question considering the premise of communication, that is the idea of sender and receiver. The existence or not of such things would surely open our eyes on the definition of what communication is.
The second is an ontological question with regard to there being any other “me” than the present “me” in whichever state or performing whatever action.
Asking about communication does not deny it. Death will eventually ensue for this body, but I still go on with life and take a shower everyday. Asking the limits of what we think we are does not kill us instantaneously, or does it?
Now how can there be any form of dogma in asking questions? Isn’t it precisely in quibble and the brushing off of questions that dogma lies hidden? As a teacher do you send your students away when they ask questions? Does that threaten your authority?
I do not have answers to all this. I am unknowing. You are the teacher after all.
Regards.
May 15th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Ben,
You’re not my student. Your first mere question considering the premise of communication and the idea of sender and receiver is, well, what we’re doing now. Your second mere ontological question is that obviously there is another ‘you’ than the present ‘you’, otherwise why would you even feel the need to mention the multiple if there is only the singular?
Now can there not be any form of dogma in asking questions? Don’t you believe in your ‘quest’ion/s?
You’ll have to explain what you mean by ‘quibble’ to me before precisely answering your next dogmatic question.
As a teacher I do send students away when they ask questions that don’t address the topic – they clearly haven’t addressed why they’re asking the question. It doesn’t necessarily threaten my authority (for I have none by your logic – questioning the possibility of communication implies that it is impossible), but it certainly makes the commune that much more difficult to communicate with.
Nice attempt at humility. I don’t have answers to all this either. I, too, am unknowing. In future (if there is one), engage with the topic.
Peter
May 17th, 2010 at 6:03 am
Pete,
Thanks for sharing. To answer quickly your questions:
No i do not believe in questions. Questions are a play of concepts meant to assess the reality of things.
Mentioning the other “me” is mere formulation. Words need not represent existents.
Now thanks for you concern, i will turn to Mike and Tom in case they feel i have not addressed the topic. If that is ok with you.
In the future, if you do not feel i address an issue of interest, please do not feel obliged to respond.
Regards.
May 21st, 2010 at 4:32 am
Ben,
If questions are just a play of concept meant to assess the reality of things, then yes, I’d most happily agree that they are. If I’m to take you seriously for a moment (as I’ve tried desperately to – try not to presume obligation in my posts – I am interested in concepts and words despite their apparent inefficiency to describe reality, but we’re pissing in the same urinal here – when you piss in the trough that the plumbers look closely at, try not to piss on the plumber’s shoes), it does imply a belief. If you negate the determinate possibility of communication and engage nonetheless, you’ve forgotten both negation and determination rely fundamentally upon each other for recognition. What ‘other’ formulation do you want to describe ‘you’ from?
If I might gesture a position that may evoke a question of your position as I’ve no obligation but a keen interest in communication: could you state for me what you do believe in?
Peter
May 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 am
Pete,
i can’t write much, i am in the middle of a thesis. And well, i believe i don’t believe anything. :)
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 am
Ben,
odd. Why write a thesis if you don’t believe in anything?
What thesis are you writing?
Peter
May 26th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Pete,
I can’t tell you everything, because words are not everything. Words are limited, the word “i” means many things and nothing. When you read “i don’t believe in anything” then there is a paradox already: words are belief already, meaningfulness is belief. But still these words can be true from another perspective, if with “i” the reference is consciousness and if words are seen as the expression of that, the words are true, their truth extend far beyond their meaning… The same applies when talking about considering the existence of sender and receiver in communication, these exist together with communication but they don’t because they constitute a whole and therefore do not exist. It’s like saying “the end and the begining of the rope”. Do they exist by themselves? no. Does the rope exist without these? no. You know what i am talking about. Anyway i can’t stay long.
The thesis is an analyse of the concept of individuality in relationship to the tradition of renunciation in 1st 1/2 millenium Indian Subcontinent. Basically: How do some people believe in individuality and how some don’t and how does that manifest.
May 17th, 2010 at 11:18 am
This makes me think of this intelligent essay from Mathew…..
http://matthewsegall.wordpress.com/tag/ken-wilber/
Dave
May 27th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Ben,
(pinching skin – ouch!) Now we’re getting somewhere!
No, you can’t tell me everything because words are not everything. Conceded, point taken, agreed. Of course, my completely obvious reply is ‘why do we engage nonetheless’?
I’m sure you’ve stumbled across Descartes and his cogito in your theoretical musings and considered both signifiers “i” and “I”. However, again, I take exception to your logic based purely on the fact that this conversation is occurring. Sure, it isn’t the ‘whole’ truth, or the ‘truth’, but it is ‘true’ that we’re disagreeing about the significance (the signifier) of the i, I and Eye. Aye?
You’re being extraordinarily bombastic in your throwing out both the baby and the bathwater and the bath, taps, plumbing, house, soil, production etc. when you suggest that because language cannot convey the whole truth and “therefore don’t exist”. Language is a modest simulacrum of our reality Ben, if you’ve got better answers than language (which I remind you again, you’re using to convey your ideology and belief), please, by all means ‘other’ than language, convince ‘us’ (I really mean ‘me’ or ‘I’, since nobody else particularly finds this line of discourse relative).
I actually don’t understand your ‘rope’ metaphor. Perhaps this is an object to understand each other’s meaning – basically because I don’t see anything about the rope that doesn’t prove my argument. You’ve used it to prove yours and assume I understand.
Without answer pre-conditioned (pre-thought, ordained, thought etc) – what is the rope?
{Ooh, I’ve a pot stirring already – but I’ll await guests to the table before serving allegorical and ideological associations. None the whole truth, but I’ve never met a person with it. As Kant suggested, if ‘God’ actually existed and turned up, our beliefs would be irrelevant. So – no whole truth without absolute instruction, let’s speculate!}
Good thesis topic, belief is one of my specific academic interests (how did I find this site again – oh yeah, that old chest nut…). I take these things very seriously Ben, and criticisms of the logistics of communication is one of my greatest pet hates (especially those that use communication to deny the utility of communication). I’m up for ALL discourses except the one you’re espousing: if what I am saying is True or False it is certainly true that I am saying it and your claims that it isn’t the whole truth and therefore is False “I” find falsifiable that you engage falsely with my truth to prove your truth correct.
And if we’re both false, who gets to say what’s true? Which (O)other?
I think we’re getting somewhere. We’re circling a truism. Don’t keep your cynical distance, engage! Why not?
Peter
November 16th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Hi guys,
There’s no link to download this episode ….. or I’ve completely overlooked it??
Have just downloaded quite a few of your other podcasts without any problems (after recently hearing you interviewed on the Urban Guru Cafe).
Cheers,
Liz :)
November 16th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Hi Liz,
I’ve put the link there now :)
Enjoy!