How much of what passes for communication relies on implicit or explicit use of the word "like" or the phrase "it is as if?" When referring to experience, there is no direct transmission. There is only what the fact or situation is "like" or "is as if." And it is on this basis that "communication" rests.
Everything "tastes like chicken." Speaking to others, speaking to oneself ... everything tastes "like" chicken. God is "like," wealth is "like," love is "like," joy is "like," depression is "like...."
In communication, one with the next, this strikes me as an ordinary compromise. Experience cannot be transmitted and yet human beings are social critters, so I'll live with your approximations if you will allow mine.
But what is acceptable compromise in one instance may rankle when alone. Just once in this life-like-chicken, wouldn't it be nice to know not what something was "like" but rather what it actually was? Just once: What is it? Without the bangles and baubles of solemn or serious consideration ... just what the hell is it? Pick your "it," any "it."
What is it, even for just a nanosecond, to lead a life that doesn't taste like chicken? Where god is god, who is god?
Just once.
Everything else tastes like chicken.
What is blue?
ReplyDelete