Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
110.
ARGUMENT:
this that is meant cannot be reached by language i.e. that which is inherently universal
they would have to admit finally they are speaking about something which is not
the unutterable is the untrue - the irrational - what is meant but not expressed
if we say of something that it is 'an actual thing' 'an external object' - its description is
the most abstract of generalities - and expresses its sameness with everything rather
than its distinctiveness
'this thing' is anything you like - if we describe it more precisely as 'this bit of paper' -
then each and every bit of paper is 'this bit of paper' - and I have only uttered the
universal
if you want to help out language you can point as in 'here' - even so a universal -
and therefore what I know is not an immediacy but a universal -
COMMENTARY:
yes - in my terms language does not refer -
language is a construction designed to mitigate against the fact of the unknown
language thus is platform for action
the unknown is never extinguished in language - it is covered
and the covering enables action -
the forms and categories imposed on the unknown - are the logic of action
in this sense what we are talking about is a metaphysical pretense - we operate as if
we know
and we must - if we are to operate at all -
there is no metaphysical dishonesty here - it a matter of simply dealing with the fact of
the unknown - and operating in relation to it -
in reality - we do what we must -
the ever presence of the reality of the unknown though - ensures that unless we are
deluded - we do not operate with certainty - we operate in uncertainty
this is to say that even in the face of our constructions on the unknown - we are never
imprisoned in by our conceptions or by our actions
the unknown is the source of freedom - whether you like that or not -
immediate experience is essentially unknown
we only know it in terms of conscious reflection
a reflection is by its nature - a move from the immediacy of the experience
any reflection will place the immediate experience in a conceptual context -
you could thus say the that the price of knowledge is the loss of the immediacy of the
unknown
conception is a move from immediacy
it is as though nothing can be done with the immediate (of course - it is unknown) -
and therefore the only way to deal with it is to redefine it in a non-immediate context
- that is in an epistemological context
that is we make it - known - and in so doing for the purposes of action it is no longer
unknown
however the truth of its real character - as unknown - is not thereby lost -
we are left always - regardless of what we construct and what we do - with an
irreducible sense of wonder
we are left always wondering and in that sense always directly in touch with and
engaged with the unknown
