Problematizing truth is a methodological problem. Philosophy always asks the question: what is truth. Socrates used to play with truth, by probing his students with an endless play of questions and answers and finally shedding of the ritual of the question itself in sheer sophistry. But again the question remains: what is truth: is this the truth: what ought to be the truth. Instead of posing truth as a discourse, I would like to dialogue with truth.
Religions amalgamate truth into a cauldron of value, a relation to the supernatural. They make it out that truth is essential for salvation, eternal life, and all the metaphysical attributes, that separate the divine from the human. Now what can this type of truth be defined? Truth is separated from reason and undergoes the ritual, an enigma of the supernatural. For a non believer truth makes no sense. Theistic truth can’t be defined but only experienced as proclaimed by the mystics. Such a concept of truth can be delusional. Truth in the religious sense can be described as theistic-mania. However religious truth has been dismantled by structuralism and postmodernism. Truth for them is a play of signs, a playful connection between the signifier and the signified. Theology from a metaphysical frame work has been deconstructed, that is the Logos of Presence is an empty sign. But still believers of theism regard it as something fundamental.
How can we portray truth in the scientific realm? There are conjectural truths. For example the idea of the Big Bang is conjectural. But the concept of DNA is verifiable through the experimental. So also is the existence of subatomic particles. There are also other types of scientific truths, the inductive and the deductive. The inductive truth stems from premises that are true and leading to conclusions. For example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a Man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. This is an inductive truth. For deductive truth: the premises can be true or false. If they are true, they lead to the right conclusions. For example sugar dissolves in water and metal does not dissolve in water.
Next I would like to take the Hegelian concept of truth and that being, arriving at a thesis, then an antithesis and finally a synthesis. The problem of Hegel’s truth is that there might not be a synthesis. Let’s take communism as an example. The domination, corruption and violence attached to communism shifted its crux from the synthesis that Communism is right to an antithesis. The synthesis today at the level of political praxis is leanings of political philosophy to the dialectics of production and profit. Dialectical materialism has grown in its stature to opportunistic capitalism. The ideological apparatuses of the state control and monitor the individual secretly. Capitalism has shed its tentacles and has united societies into global corporations. Global corporations go even to the extent of funding democratic elections and bringing to victory candidates of their choice. Here truth becomes a choice of being a value as an economic entity. Truth becomes manipulated for affluent economic consumption.
Next I would like to explain truth from an ontological, phenomenological, psychoanalytic perspective. I am also going to incorporate postmodernism into my narrative. Ontology explains the structure of being, the presence of making the meaning of being. Postmodern philosophy has challenged the existence of presence of being. What I would like to say is that meaning is always being made. The processing of meaning through contents consciousness (phenomenology) is a dialectical process. We can call the making of meaning as processual ontology. Let’s take the concept of meaning psychoanalytically. The Philosopher Sartre has given the status of being as unlimited freedom. But psychoanalytically meaning of being remains conditioned to the ID, EGO and Super Ego. Raw passions are controlled by the EGO, family moorings, and the Super EGO, the laws of the society, what Lacan calls as: In the Name of the Law of the Father. A being has to tight rope walk on these three psychological attributes the ID, EGO and the Super Ego. A Nietzsche’s follower would in post-modern sense would say: sublimate the ID, transcend the Ego and the Subvert the Super Ego. By doing so, man can become the Übermensch or the over-man. Truth in the post modern sense depends on how well, you can sublimate the ID, transcend the Ego and subvert the Super Ego.
I have read Camus’ book ‘Myth of the Sisyphus’. And I started my introspection on Nihilism. The senseless, the absurd, the chaotic, have to be transformed by living a life of creative authentication. One way of overcoming Nihilism is through language. I adopt Nietzsche’s dictum: the will to power. Everyday experiences are transformed into metaphoric nuances. Nihilism for Nietzsche is the affirmation of the Dionysian. Ecstasy and rhythms are vibratory metaphors to transform life to a higher plane of existence. A nihilist would also like to experience altered states of consciousness. What are emotive characteristics of Nihilism? Affirmation, Negation, Possession, are various states where the individual exerts through creative anarchy. For a Nihilist democratic dialogism is a process through which inter-personal harmony is experienced. A nihilist has to transform life by overcoming suicide. What is affirmation? Affirmation is a cathartic-yes-ness of experience. Negation is an existential mantra, a nihiliation whereby an individual exorcises an intentional object or emotion from the core to the periphery of existence. The very root of possession is passion. The human body is built on the roots to appropriate. A nihilist does not believe in after life. He or she has to live the life to fullest while inhabiting the earth.
In this article I would like to focus on how we try to discern a metaphor. I would like to focus on the cognitional faculty associated with metaphors. Discerning a metaphor can be aesthetic, religious, secular, cultural-historical and philosophical.
A metaphor in common day language is an adornment of words where there occurs a comparison between things. For example: His thoughts are a flying saucer. It means that his thoughts are fanciful and unrealistic. This metaphor has only one effect on the reader which is a pure aesthetic one, one of pleasure.
Let’s look at another example: He is a shady night. Here the metaphor embodies a semantic concept, meaning that he is not a straight forward person. This semantic attribute is related to a particular emotional quality and there by casting its roots into the soil of judging human qualities.
But some metaphors go beyond the aesthetic. Let’s take a Biblical metaphor which is also simile: ‘You should have faith as a mustard seed’. A simile is also related to the metaphor and uses like or as. Here mustard seed takes a meaning of the supra-sensible realm, beyond the aesthetic. Faith becomes dichotomized into smallness and reliance on the super-natural. We can utilize its meaning in the secular sense as the tininess of faith for obtainment of a thing or with a religious tinge, having faith as small as a mustard seed and relying faith on a transcendental power. The hermeneutic meaning is left to the discernment of the reader.
Next I would like to take an example of a metaphor having political and historical connotations. For example: Fascism and Nazism have become religious entities of fanatic Islam in the contemporary geo-political world. Here the meaning becomes a thesis (far- right dictatorships), an antithesis (unfair barbarism and cruelty and the holocaust) and synthesis (the aim of fanatic Islam to create terrorism and also dominate the world). I am using Hegelian Philosophy here. The meaning of this metaphor bifurcates into cultural, political and historic roots and brings up a daunting similarity with the contemporary comparison.
Next I would like to analyze a metaphor from feminist philosophy. For example: We or they are gender twins. This refers to woman who does not like to be labeled as she or he. Being gender neutral and the same time having a gender is an accepted norm of conceptual democratic post-modern philosophy.
Thus in my readings of the metaphor, I have left its discernment as aesthetics, as the religious, as the semantic, as the secular, as the historical, cultural and the political and also the philosophical.
Sartre starts his philosophy by assuming states of consciousness. He starts his discourse by contradicting Descartes Philosophy of thought: Cogito Ergo Sum: I think therefore I exist. Sartre says that the consciousness of Descartes which thinks is a secondary consciousness or in Sartre’s Words: the consciousness of the for-Itself. For Sartre there’s a consciousness, a primary one which is an empty one called in-Itself. This Sartre calls as Pre-reflective Cogito. Now here lies the problem: the consciousness that Sartre posits as the in-itself is not really an empty vehicle, when we consider it in Freudian terms.
Now let’s take the theories of Freud relating to the mind. Freud is famous for his derivation of the Unconscious, ID, EGO and the Super Ego. The ID composes of primeval energies which according to Freud are libidinal. The Ego develops through the social environment and culture which an individual experiences. The Super Ego or in psychoanalyst Lacan’s words: in the name of the Father are the laws of the society which prohibits and restrains the individual from committing unlawful acts. Transgressing these laws would entail punishment. The unconscious according to Freud is a realm where the repressed exists.
In this article, I would like to synthesize the Consciousness of Sartre with theories of Freud. The consciousness which Sartre names as the primary consciousness or the in-itself is not really empty. It consists of the Freudian unconscious and also the Freudian Id or the libidinal energies. The unconscious manifests in Sartre’s for-itself consciousness as tongue slips and dreams. The libidinal energies too are experienced in the for-itself as sexual acts, as art. But when they are expressed they become subject to the democratic norms of the society. Art can be a medium through which the repressed can be given free reign. However the Super Ego present in the consciousness of the for-itself has certain taboos attached to it. Some taboos may be broken without punishment; for example adultery is not punishable by law and democracy allows consensual sex. But there are other taboos which cannot be violated. They are incest and murder. During times of their violation the Super Ego intervenes to punish the accused.
Sartre goes to an incredible extent with his existential philosophy to say that there are no inherent values or morals and it’s permissive for the individual to direct the consciousness of the for-itself permissively. Sartre claims that all acts of the for-itself are authentic responsibilities for the individual. Yes Sartre is right when he says we are condemned to be free. The Freudian Super Ego controls our Ego and the ID by imposing norms which are conducive for democracy. Unethical behavior can be democratically expressed through art. Violence, murder, incest all these are universal taboos which are not to be violated in an ethical democracy. There are exceptional individuals who have attained philosophical notoriety by their writings and life. For example let’s take Marquis De Sade who was fascinated with murder and eroticism. But his writings and life violate the democratic norm but can be discussed philosophically.
For Sartre, Ego was a state, but for Freud it’s an inbuilt mechanism housing the unconscious, ID, Ego and the Super Ego.
In conclusion I reiterate that the primary consciousness of Sartre, the in-itself comprises of the Freudian unconscious and the ID and Sartre’s consciousness of the for-itself is not entirely free but socially conditioned by the Ego and lawfully controlled by the Super Ego. The self has to balance the consciousness the in-itself with the for-itself. An imbalance would give rise to psychosis or neurosis.
The assumption of this writing starts from the view that all signs are Signifiers. A signifier is a tangible reality with a sense of meaning. I have divided the post-structural assemblage of the sign into various categories.
Semantoria refers to the phonic and graphic content of the letter. Here the letter of the language metamorphizes into a primary content of meaning which can be a spoken one or a written one. The presence or absence of meaning as implied by deconstruction can be considered as implying sensibilities. The essence of connotation can only be an implication of construction.
In semantics verbs are performative, that is they perform an action. A verb such as swim is a signifier and it performs the action of swimming. For words to be the symptom of Verboria, they can form an idea that is sensible and not an abstract one like love, passion or kindness. For example: in a sentence: she dances, the meaning becomes complete and that state of completion is called verboria. Writing of Verboria taken in the grammatological sense of Derrida’s Deconstruction fails to become a deconstructive entity.
Logoria is a state of forming a sign from a signifier and a signified. It was Saussure who introduced it into language. A signifier is a tangible entity and belongs to the sensate realm. For e.g. let’s take odor. Odor belongs to the sensate realm and it can be felt. Here Odor is a Signifier. If I say: the odor is nauseating, nauseating becomes a signified or a connoted idea. Nauseating becomes the Signified. Post-structuralists use deconstruction to deconstruct signs. When there is a presence in a sign, there is also an absence. Post-Structuralists argue that a sign privileges presence and marginalizes an absence. For example if I say that colored people cannot be intellectuals, I am privileging the presence of White and marginalizing the presence of the colored. For Derrida the stability of signs in a language is an articulated hegemony. Language by its very structure when prone to articulation becomes victim of structural inconsistencies. It is the duty of deconstruction to articulate critical readings to autonomic democracy.
A Metoria is an effect of reading tropes or figures of speech. Let’s take a metaphor as an example. For example Palestine is a Volcano. The meaning implied here is Palestine’s political climate is very volatile. Palestine is the tenor the denoted part of the sentence and Volcano is the vehicle which carries the tenor. A metaphor can have a realism of meaning which is mere semantic content. At a secondary level, the meaning of a metaphor implies an aesthetic effect. The reader gets to appreciate the content of meaning created by the metaphor. For a reading of metaphor there is also a tertiary level of meaning and meaning becomes an ideology, a meta-narrative or a grand-narrative. For example: Palestine is a volcano suggests that it is nation longing for being recognized to an absolute status as a nation-entity. The opponents of this view might claim that Palestine is inducing terrorist activities and rampant unlawful behavior. The tertiary level of reading a metaphor can be deconstructive that is undoing the privileged status of meaning.
Mathematical and Scientific symbols fall into this category. For example the word DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid falls into the symbolic category of meaning. The structural presence of meaning is always one of being abstract and being in transformation.
Tropes are figures of speech. The most common are the metaphors and similes. A metaphor is comparison between two objects one being the Tenor of comparison and the other being the Vehicle. For example: My body is a wounded and politically bonded Palestine. The body is the tenor and the description of the body: Palestine is the vehicle. A simile uses like or as, for example strong as a lion. What would be the effect of a reader who reads into the metaphor? I would like to use my own term: “CONOSCEANCE” CONOSCEANCE has been derived from Connoisseur and Séance. It has three levels of meaning. These levels of meaning occur, when the trope is being unraveled. One is sensate meaning, the second is intelligent meaning and the third is the aesthetic effect, the feeling of beauty or repulsion. The sensate meaning is related to the senses. The intelligent realm of meaning is related to the forming of an idea and the aesthetic realm is that of pleasure or revulsion.
I have been reading into the Beat Generation writers especially Ginsberg and Kerouac. I am fascinated by their leanings towards the Counter Culture movement, their passion to experiment with drugs and achieve liberation through altered states of consciousness, their echo for free libidinal revolution and their offers for nonviolence and peace. However what I can’t digest is their veering towards Eastern Religions and their morbid attraction for their rites and cults. The steering of their ships to Eastern mysticism is considered by me as their myopic fascination with the ecstasy of the East as Western foreign outsiders. Though I am living in the East, my mind has been brought up in the liberal Hellenic culture of the West. Language, Philosophy, Art and Culture of the West has deeply fascinated me and inspires my mind to innovate and create fictions, poetry and philosophy. I, being an Easterner live in a culture that’s highly conservative, orthodox and ritualistic. None of the devotees of Eastern Religions would feel to tempted to adopt, follow the patterns of life and living adopted by the Beatniks. My South Asian Experience with Eastern mysticism had been an infliction of wound on my being. Hinduism or Buddhism and its devotees in East do not follow it as the BEATNIKS did. Beatnik adoption of Hindu or Buddhist mysticism would be blasphemy for religious devotees of the East. Yes, I will try to live the ideal of Nietzsche’s Dionysian element of rhythm and ecstasy. The Philosophers of the West have inspired me to be a creative being and embrace a living of creative hedonism.