Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Let us follow Wittgenstein on the way of sharing the insight that trans-historically illuminates how the conventional uses of signs as pictures of language used as means and ends of representation operate as internally connected with the manifest signifying phenomena of life.

Although it is commonplace to speak of the astonishment or wonder that started philosophy, it is ironical to see the form of expressions of thinking, reasoning, arguing habits, so structured historically by the rules of historical language-games as not to be able to express a sense in response to the call of its originating movement. That movement tried to articulate a language of awareness as to the manifest of a single substance, as physis or nature as Natura Naturans, the aspects of which are reminded and assembled as “language-games” by Wittgenstein as the signifying manifest background of every picture representing the identity and difference of an object or event, pointed, shown, named by the use of an ostensive definition which may be the use of a pointing finger or a naming sign used as such. Understanding the Logos of Physis, or manifest nature is intimately connected with such a sense of life of nature in manifest which is not subject to be represented by pictures, names and descriptions of language. It manifests as the possibility of speaking by means of using and operating with representations of language. Hence the manifest nature as Natura Naturans, Physis in manifest is intimately connected with understanding the “logos” of words, understanding how words mean, name, describe, operate with meaning, with the rule, the “logos” of which is kept and shared for the meaningful application of the word to its object.

According to Platonism narrated by the history of western philosophical tradition, the logos of the sign and the signified is maintained in so far as by soul’s reminiscence of the original Idea associated by sensations of the signified which manifests as a copy or imitation of its original Form. By the narrative of Logos of Platonism the word is separated from the signifying Use of the word in internal connection with the signifying manifest of phenomena, to a transcendental realm of Ideas and Soul life which paves the way to narratives of soul substance and subjectivity capable of thinking and applying a priori concepts or rules of thinking to empirical experience conceived in the manner of Kant’s synthetic a priori or Bertrand Russell’s atomic proposition the subject and predicate signs of which are supposed to name a particular and universal obtained to be perceived by the analysis of sense data which is subject to the perception and analysis of the thinking soul substance. The essentialism about the logos and the essentialist presuppositions in the construction of such narratives disguised in the manner of scientific analyses and theories are intimately connected, as they are being narratives, pictures of language as such, constructed by means of following and applying rules of language without however understanding the rules of the game in accordance with which pictures picture in language, i.e., how signs operate to name and represent, mean, show, define, give an ostensive definition of anything in language. Such failure of understanding the Logos of words opens a way to a series of confusions the hidden unquestioned presuppositions of which are disguised by the appearance of being a logical theory as epistemology and ontology, the logic of which is conditioned by the hardened operational rules and conventions of the language-game, in which one’s thinking habits are operationally structured to react with pictures of language in analysing and projecting pictures – whereas the problem in question actually requires an awareness about the phenomena that manifest the forms of expressions and significations operational with learning the rules of projecting, acting and operating with pictures of language, both as means as well as ends of language.

What is required is then the sense of awareness of manifest phenomena to save “Phenomena” by elucidating it from the prejudices of language; hence elucidating to shine the manifestation of life as the possibility of operating with the signs of language; namely as the possibility of naming, showing, pointing, speaking, writing, representing (picturing) by means of the use of the signs of language. What is brought to awareness as such is the reactive conditioned forms of expressions of our imagined self-consciousness. They are the form of expressions habit structures operationally structured in reaction to pictures which are expressed by gestures of pointing things or events as if they are meant or differentiated, perceived as such prior to the learning and operating with pictures of language.

This indicates that “intentionality” needs to be elucidated as a phenomena expressive of itself in connection with significations that express and connect it with the rules and conventional uses of signs which are used in both ways: as means and ends of representing; the use of pictures as means as well as of pictures held fast as reality as the standard rule of comparing and measuring the truth of representational forms of expressions. In other words, elucidation of intentionality in internal connection with the use of signs and representational language recovers and illuminates manifest phenomena, as Nature in the aspect of Natura Naturans of Spinoza, as “that which is conceived through and in itself”.4

Therefore the form of expressions clarified as internally connected with manifest signifying phenomena allows us to untie the knots of intentionality the modalities of which are conditioned and structured by objectified representations of language and that such an intentionality in its conditioned state cannot make the required articulations of thinking to untie the knots of its own conditioning by elucidating the phenomena in manifest but perpetuate to react with operational habits of thinking structured by language phenomena.

What is in question is the presupposed background in which “dark” and “light”, “language” and “world” and all opposites obtained by naming, affirming and denying are internally connected with significations; that is the interface, the chasm between conceptual identities and differences particularized by naming and picturing.

Here we need to dig deeper into the reality of the forms of our expressions to open an interface between our sense of reality structured by conceptual representations, i.e., between concepts representing the reality of our wake life and the reality of our dream life, the reality of the latter of which is subordinated and judged by the rules of the language-game of our wake life. Missing the awareness of manifest background phenomena in the signifying web of which our forms of expressions signify to be shared as the rules of operating with signs, we seem to be acting and reacting as if consciously intending and willing subjects of our operations with signs, as if subjects naming and describing objects and events of a surrounding world horizon, in deep oblivion of the fact that such a horizon is a shared representational horizon historically structured. That is a horizon which appears on the other hand as the objective reality itself, as if representing its own nature or essence; the reality of which as if it’s subject to be pointed at, shown, touched, seen as this and that, in the clear light of common sense. That is the light of common sense determined by the rules and habits of language, rather than the light of awareness free of such a determination.

Hence what seems to be our wake life as opposed to dream life, may not be so awake unless we dig deeper into the forms of expressions the signifying shared consequences of which express and sustain the differences and similarities of our wake and dream life by the rules of the game in internal connection with manifest form of expressive phenomena manifested by significations.

A recognition of what is essential and inessential in our language if it is to represent (picture), a recognition of which parts of our language are wheels turning idly, amounts to the construction of a phenomenological language. (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Remarks, Blackwell, 1975, I, p. 51.)

Our operations with the use of signs manifest in internal connection with the manifest signifying stream of life, phenomena as such (manifest “suchness” as expressed by the Zen Doctrine of no mind, awareness of life with a freedom of distance to the operationally conditioned intentional consciousness and imagination in reaction to the pictures of language.). Hence clarifying essential aspects of manifest phenomena from what is inessential, allows us to take notice of the forms of expressions of intentionality, the operational habits of operating with representations of language as tools or means of representation. Lack of that awareness of the language phenomena – in the manifest of which “language” and “world”, or “subject” and “object” and everything represented by conceptual identities and differences operate in language – results in a language of conditioned intentionality the forms of expressions of which express confusions of misunderstanding how pictures of language and intentionality operate and intertwined historically as they continue to condition each other building up a strengthening circle in which intentional habit reactions and constructing pictures operationally feed on each other. I.e. the words “name” and “object” only seemingly identify and represent the naming sign and the signified as “object” without actually recognizing the signifying phenomena in which these words and other signs operate in internal connection with the signifying use of other words as signs in the stream of manifest phenomena. Therefore, all the suppositions and analyses introduced by descriptions of “subjectivity” and “objectivity”, or as to the subject predicate analyses of a proposition to explain the representational connection of a proposition with the actual world are in fact expressions of a confusion resulting from using pictures of language in describing the phenomena essential for representation, in describing the facts of picturing, which are not on the same level with the pictured facts already re-presented as “ready to hand”, and which are in the space of expectations and associations of imagination and memory habits operationally structured with the use of pictures of language. The manifest phenomena on the other hand is not in the space of expectation and associations of imagination, is not anywhere of logical and temporal space and horizon of imagination and memory habits. It is a manifestation in the signifying web of which our memory and imagination habits in reaction with the signifying consequences of signs are operationally structured with the operational rules and techniques of operating, acting with the use of signs. In other words, the awareness of manifest phenomena in question changes our intentional modality conditioned as empirical subjectivity in reaction to pictures of language particularized as objects and events in physical and temporal space.

Therefore, the elucidation of the manifest phenomena in which intentionality with pictures of language are operationally structured is of primary importance. On the other hand the human intentionality (the forms of expressions of consciousness, consciousness expressed as phenomena manifested by significations in internal connections rather than consciousness and phenomena pictured by using pictures as means of picturing, i.e., in the manner of subject object epistemologies) structured as such with representations of language seems not to be able to think except by operating and projecting pictures of language in interpreting its own pictures, hence building modules by projecting pictures that paves and structures a way of treading by its own projections. The problem seems as if we are condemned to be determined to move by language habits, by the rules and techniques of operating and thinking with signs of language, rather than with a freedom of awareness as long as we fail to be struck by the manifest signifying phenomena.

It is indeed here, the philosophical insight or intuitive awareness comes in as the key to the elucidation problem concerning manifest signifying phenomena where forms of expressions manifest in internal connections with significations simultaneous and spontaneous as life without a subject and object, or manifest significations in internal connections as the limit of saying, showing, giving an ostensive definition, doing anything in language with signs, hence operating with signs, or pictures of language. That is an awareness which enables us not to react as conditioned by any cultural historical system of beliefs based on the rules and pictures of any historical language-game, but as one which enables us to understand the human form of life by tracing the modifications of intentionality shaped in any historical context of language-game by the rules and techniques of the pictures used as means of representation to represent reality – to picture reality as one’s surrounding world horizon whether scientifically or culturally.

However, that aspect of language phenomena in manifest, remain covered and left in deep oblivion owing to the intentional structure of our operating with signs, in speaking, showing, naming, describing things and events in physical and temporal space. It is due to that oblivion or effacing of manifest phenomena, life as “suchness” from one’s awareness that our world horizon seem to us as if subject to our intentional operations and perceptions as if they are “there”, as “ready to hand”, so to speak with the terms of Heidegger, objectified as objects with their conceptual identities and differences in space, and likewise events as temporal occurrences as temporal space. Therefore, the reminders assembled as “language-games” of Wittgenstein; or “Lifeworld” of Husserl; or Vivencia of Ortega y Gasset; or Dasein of Heidegger; or Virtuality of the Durée of Bergson, (in which memory reactions are structured and temporalized and spatialized as cause and effect, before and after); or the “chiasm” of Merleau-Ponty whose “Visible and Invisible” is an attempt to open an interface between the boundary drawn by concepts representing the visible and invisible, which is an interface opened to elucidate the interplay of significations that internally connect what is visible and invisible the significations of which imply and presuppose each other, hence providing a distance of freedom of intelligence to the interference of the prejudices or imaginings of the subjectivity whose intentionality structured by operational habits of reacting to the pictures of concepts; or likewise the interplay of “Cairos” and “Chronos” of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka are all philosophical elaborations focused to elucidate and express the same sense of life in manifest, as the presupposed trans-historical background of historical time-structure of intentionality, the temporalized behaviour of historical consciousness and imagination as such.

Therefore, the phenomenological terms “lebenswelt”, “vivencia”, “umwelt” etc. always need to be used in the light of phenomenological elucidation. They are such critical terms which need to be saved always from the associations of operational language and the intentionality conditioned along with the historical backload of such historical languages. Heidegger’s introduction of Dasein is such a term developed to elucidate the phenomena in manifest in the web of which intentional operational thinking habits are webbed and get structured as one’s shared historical consciousness. Here the awareness that calls to be heard by means of a movement of thinking that elucidates phenomena in which the logical syntax of language of intentional consciousness is structured is not on the same level of awareness with the intentionality, whose operational thinking habits are determined historically, by the historical dynamics of the language and culture in which one is trained and educated as an actor of the language-game. We need not to name and categorize this higher awareness as transcendental, or as absolute – this would be a wrong gesture that triggers imagination reactions. What we always need is to keep the way open for ourselves and others by elucidating the ways for that awareness to awaken and move to articulate the forms of expressions to express and manifest itself as it is; hence moving out of the determined historical modalities of intentionality to the unconditioned free mode of awareness, as the possibility of which pointed out by Spinoza.

Here philosophy and poetic language are in need of each other as philosophical elucidations need to guide the way out from the misguided memory habits and reactions of imagination by the associations of pictures of historical language-games. Poetry by itself may not be enough to bring out the ultimate light of awareness, whereas the harmony and the stillness that shines in poetry shines in the light of awareness that traces its articulating movements all at once with the manifest form of significations.5

Without that awareness, our thinking with tools of language has to remain imprisoned so to speak by representational language, it has to move within the circle of constructing and projecting pictures of language with the operational habits of applying methods and techniques of language, with the intentionality the thinking and imagining habits of which are already determined by the rules and techniques of the historical language-games.

The difference between thinking (philosophizing) for the elucidation of manifest phenomena and thinking phenomena always by means of constructing and projecting pictures and models with the methods and techniques of comparing pictures with pictures is noted by Wittgenstein in his Foreword below. Elucidating the aspects of manifest phenomena as what is essential for representation, for acting and operating with pictures of language, clarifies not only the a posteriori basis of rules and techniques of applying logic and logical thinking in historical language-games, but more significantly the phenomenon expressive of the intentionality, the form of expressions of consciousness in reaction to the images and associations of the representations of language which is a reaction that closes and imprisons one’s thinking to a modality of thinking conditioned by pictures of language.

That is a modality of subject object thinking the wheel of which is turned by our operational habits of intentionality structured to operate with pictures of language. Therefore it is crucial and significant to understand how we think/operate with pictures of language rather than picturing facts of picturing by means of constructing and projecting pictures in the name of analysis and synthesis, with the methods and tools of analytical thinking habits that produce science and technological culture with the representational historical world horizon peculiar to the modes of thinking that constructs it by reactions and consequences that project and picture it.

That requires clarifying essential aspects of manifest phenomena from what inessential, i.e., from the imagination pictures expressed by the form of expressions of gestures of meaning, pointing, showing, giving an ostensive definition of anything as if it’s the basis of naming and representing something in language, as was the implicit presupposition of Russell’s idea of naming in his theory of atomic proposition.

Wittgenstein delineates with a clear awareness his authentic difference that characterizes the sense of motivation behind the movement of his thinking always directed to elucidate phenomena as it is manifested, to save the phenomena as manifest from the prejudices of the intentionality the thinking habits of which are determined by operational habits of applying a logic that works with operating with pictures.

This book is written for such men as are in sympathy with its spirit. This spirit is different from the one which informs the vast stream of European and American civilization in which all of us stand. That spirit expresses itself in an onwards movement, in building ever larger and more complicated structures; the other in striving after clarity and perspicuity in no matter what structure. The first tries to grasp the world by way of its periphery – in its variety; the second at its centre – in its essence. And so the first adds one construction to another, moving on and up, as it were, from one stage to the next, while the other remains where it is and what it tries to grasp is always the same.6

Elucidation of manifest phenomena of life, with significations internally connected simultaneous and spontaneous is what is saved and grasped as always the same, namely the same manifest surroundings with its essential aspects of significations internally connected for learning and operating with conventional rules and pictures as means and ends of constructing and describing pictures are always reminded as a cross-strip and saved as the sub specie aeternitatis presupposed background of showing, pointing, naming, giving an ostensive definition of anything – hence speaking, meaning, saying something in physical and temporal space. In other words, the reminders assembled as language-games, are such cross-strips saved as aspects of manifest of phenomena of life, the simulteniety and spontaneity of which are always presupposed as what sustain our thinking and operating with pictures, the logical space of which both physically and temporally are segmented with the habit structures of intentionality by operating and learning to operate with signs as they signify internally connected with the spontaneous and simultaneous virtual manifest of significations. Therefore, the awareness that elucidates the internal connections of manifest signifying surroundings for the use of any sign to be used as a picture, either as means or ends of picturing reminds and assembles those aspects as what is essential for a picture to operate as such. Hence the reminders assembled as language-games present cross-strips and strike us, if they ever strike us 7 at all as sub specie aeternitatis, to touch us with the momentum of touching our whole stance of existential modality to bring the standstill of its habitual operational movement, in such ways as expressed by the form of expressions of the Zen masters: “Moving as unmoved”, intending, willing, meaning and so on. That is to say, without the backload of the historical habits of imagining subject the whole intentional psychological modality of which as being determined in reaction to pictures and associations of pictures of historical language-games.

They are forms of expressions that unite poetic expression and philosophical insight and wisdom – as the articulations of which serve to open the interface between representations, between the particularizations of memory and imagination habits of pointing, showing, demonstrating, giving an ostensive definition of a thing or an event already conceptualized. The interface opens up for us a different horizon of signs in manifest,8 signifying simultaneously, as uncaused in the sense of spontaneity from which no conceptual difference is yet pictured, or marked off in space and time. This is the horizon the sense of which is flashed out by Heraclitus’ remark: “One cannot step into the same river twice.” That is a remark which is poetic as a metaphor and philosophical as it expresses an insight of awareness as to the manifest sense of phenomena of life, in the unfolding significations of which our reactions with their signifying consequences become operational with our use of signs as tools (means) of representation as well as what is represented. As we operate with signs to show, name or describe the conceptual differences signified by the use of signs which are particularized or qualified as objects in physical and temporal space, our operating with signs are likewise segmented and ordered causally and temporally by our operating with signs. Hence the form of reality is first projected by the consequences of our entering to the life of language acting and reacting with significations in the heart of simultaneous and spontaneous shining of virtual manifest of life, without being neither a subject nor an object.

When Wittgenstein reminds us how a child learns the use of words by acting and operating with their signifying consequences, what is expected from us is to take notice of signifying phenomena of life in manifest, which requires a different awareness of phenomena from the intentionality of an adult, whose intellectual habits of thinking with pictures of language are already determined by the techniques and rules of the language and culture in which one is trained and educated as an actor. Hence actors’ intentionality, consciousness, thinking habits are a hindrance to take notice of the phenomena in manifest which needs to be elucidated as internally connected with the expressive phenomena of one’s consciousness, intentions, desires, feelings and so on, the significations and consequences of which are expressed and become operational with particular objects, desired, felt, used, operated with consequences and technologies and methodologies interlacing in the life of language-game as culture and history of culture. In other words, an adult who may be intellectually a master of such technological and intellectual knowledge as an actor of the language-game and historical culture, who may precisely for this reason be hampered from sensing and noticing the manifest of life as it is, in its simultaneity and spontaneity without a subject and object as such, from the manifest single substance of which such modalities of object/event consciousness, historical intentionality as such is manifested so to speak in Spinoza’s terms.

Lack of awareness of how language, intentional consciousness and pictures of language operate as internally connected and condition each other reciprocally contains so many misunderstandings and confusions resulting from the missing of such an awareness of manifest phenomena in the signifying web of which our memory and imagination reactions become operational with signs structuring an intentional consciousness with the use of signs and their signifying consequences which interlace and criss-cross with other significations. Hence language, without the awareness as to the operational structuring of intentionality with the use of signs and representations of language becomes a labyrinth of doxas created by language habits, by habits of thinking and operating with the techniques and rules of applying the tools of language which serve as both means and ends of picturing anything as “real” as opposed to “unreal” and so on. Therefore, elucidating the internal connection between manifest signifying phenomena and the intentionality of thinking and operating with signs is crucial to understanding everything in the light of phenomenological elucidation of phenomena, which amounts to responding appropriately to the insight which the word Logos expresses. “Understanding the internal connection” means elucidating the internal connections between operating with the intentionality of memory habits connected with external connections of signs with internal connections of signified phenomena always presupposed as the possibility of saying and showing something by means of an external connection defined and maintained, reminded by Berkeley as God’s continuing to perceive as what sustains the mutual agreement in the signifying consequences shared and sustained as the rules of the game, as the possibility of saying and showing anything in the language-game.

The subject of the awareness or intelligence is nowhere of space, as it elucidates how we come to speak in terms of space through operating with signs, but also it is everywhere of the space of memory, as it is an awareness in contrast to thinking and imagining habits conditioned and confined to the place/space of memory of one’s operational habits, hence to move only operationally with the rules and techniques of pictures of the historical space of language-game in which one is trained and educated. This is not a denial of historical culture nor historical consciousness but the possibility of the freeing of intelligence by its own movement of awareness that is otherwise confined to move only through the habit structures of thinking conditioned and structured operationally by being trained and educated with the historical rules of the language-game. Here lies the only possibility of understanding history and historical condition of man, with a certain distance of freedom from the reactive imagination and consciousness, the intentional habit structures of which are conditioned by being trained and educated operationally with rules and techniques of pictures of historical language-games which weave and condition human thinking with all the backlog of historical imagination and thinking habits. What I am trying to elucidate is thus meant to contribute to sharing and expressing the insight that started philosophy which seems to have fallen away from its originating awareness with the intellectual technological development of constructing pictures and techniques in the form of theories and hypothesis which served as a model for constructing epistemological and ontological pictures while the real question required a clarity of understanding as to how pictures of language pictured concepts with their represented identities and differences. The same confusion and failure of awareness of the manifest of life of phenomena still infects philosophy and understanding science in the form of philosophizing in accordance with methods of science, in pursuit of scientific pictures of cognition, popularized as cognitive sciences and so on, while the real question requires clarity of understanding how pictures of language picture/represent concepts with their identities and differences, which is the clarity as a key to tracing not only science with its internal connections with language and culture, but tracing the reactive behavior of intentional consciousness under the impact of the pictures of language cultural as well as scientific.

The elucidation of interface elucidates what is meant by the concept of “Lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) which phenomenology arrived to face as the manifest signifying background in which intentionality is structured to be expressed with the form of expressions of consciousness of objects. In other words consciousness of space and time unfolds and is sustained by manifest signifying phenomena as intentionality is structured by the forms of expressions the signifying consequences of which are shared to make up the rules of acting with signs as both means of representations as well as what is represented (pictured) as the reality of the surroundings, as our world picture with its horizons. Such that pictures of language are used to picture all our surroundings with a space of acting and operating with them exhausting all the space of thinking and acting with its own rules and techniques of operating with them, leaving no space for thinking and questioning as to its structuring. This shows that our thinking and imagining habits are so much structured and determined by the language of representations which does not allow for our intelligence any space or interval to take notice of the manifest signifying phenomena expressing the behavior of our operational habits of thinking and imagining with its own forms of expressions peculiar to it. The intentionality expressed by habits of thinking and imagining that are structured with the rules and techniques of pictures of language does not allow for our intelligence any space of movement except by operating with the techniques and rules of pictures, which then results by forming and constructing general pictures, in the form of theories, hypotheses and so on. And which then is closed by its own movement operationally determined by thinking habits with rules and picture constructions, to move so to speak in a spiralling way by describing pictures by means of pictures, by projecting picture constructions where the question requires understanding how pictures operate internally connected with the manifest of phenomena of life.

That closed horizon, is the horizon of “physical space” once read and held to be three dimensional due to the missing awareness of the internal connections between our operations with pictures and the world horizon the appearances of which are read and spaced by these operational activities. That is also the physical space once supposed and re-presented as filled by “matter” defined by its primary qualities as opposed to secondary qualities. The analytical habits of thinking went to analyze objects in terms of essential and accidental properties, or in terms of primary and secondary qualities, imagining a “perceiver” “analyzer” “subject” or “consciousness” in reaction to the particularized identities and differences which operate as pictures of language; hence going away from the sense of manifest of phenomena of life, expressed by the poetic metaphorical language of Heraclitus and Parmenides.

Where does our body end and the physical space of matter start? Or the border of body end and the awareness of self subjectivity start? How do we come to speak with these conceptual descriptions that picture our bodies, or our supposed subjective or objective perceptions? Do they exist independently of our coming to learn to speak with these concepts and descriptions? Or do we also come to experience our life horizon precisely due to our coming to learn to operate with such words and concepts?

Hence, the importance and significance of phenomenology as it represents a movement of thinking that is concerned with elucidating structure of intentionality, the behavior of imagination intertwining operationally with the signifying consequences of signs with regard to phenomena in manifest – that is a movement of thinking contrariwise to the subject object ontological and epistemological suppositions centered around a supposed subjectivity, intentionality as such, with a priori or a posteriori rules conceived either in Cartesian terms or in Kantian synthesis. The phenomenological elucidation of manifest phenomena requires therefore always opening up the interface between concepts, which allows us the awareness of the continuity of signifying stream of phenomena between the discontinuities and fragmentations of intentional consciousness due to reactions and their operational consequences in the form of habit and belief structures to pictures of language. Which are the beliefs one entertains as a subject who speaks and reports one’s dreams, as opposed to one’s wake life, having learnt to speak and report with concepts that are used to describe and report them. As our concepts, such as “dream” and “wake life”, or “language” and “world”, or “subject” and “object”; “mind” and “matter”; “res cogitans” and “res extensa”, etc. operate as pictures the rules of which are based on our reactions and consequences in the language-game in which we are trained. As long as we fail to be struck by the awareness of the signifying stream of phenomena, our life experience are determined by the consequences of our reactions which become operational with rules and pictures of historical conventional language-games. The narratives and beliefs systems associated then dominate and shape human sensibility as an intentionality empirically and historically shared, as discontinuous and fragmented life experiences experienced, seen as in the manner of perceiving, meaning, showing, pointing reality. Such truth beliefs, as Wittgenstein does, are provoked to be expressed as expressed by gestures and gesticulations of meaning, showing, pointing at the reality of anything which may be something like a sensation, or something like Moore’s hand, while on the other hand they are carried out to their logical conclusion by reminders assembled as language-games, by clarifying that they remain like an idle wheel, turning nothing with itself, signifying nothing, in oblivion and in isolation of the signifying internal connections that one learns to operate with the manifest signifying Use of other signs. That Use internally connected with the manifest signifying surroundings is presupposed as the ungrounded grounds of learning the conventional rules and pictures of all historical-cultural-conventional language-games. Intentionality remains fragmented and conditioned in oblivion of the manifest of signifying surroundings. That conditioned modality of thinking and imagining in reaction to the identities and differences represented by pictures of language doesn’t in turn allow for one the freedom of space (of awareness) to trace back and forth the signifying process that structures intentional operational habits in internal connection with pictures of language reciprocally. Hence while pictures of language are projected by means of reactions and their signifying consequences which arrive to constitute one’s world horizon, they operate on the other hand by filtering signifying manifest phenomena of life from the horizon of the intentionality structured to operate in reaction and with the use of the pictures of the language-game.

Such analyses in oblivion of the internal connections of signifying surroundings which operate as the possibility of meaning, showing, pointing, intending, willing anything with the use of signs, follow from intentional operational memory habits structured in reaction to pictures of language, more correctly to the particular images isolated from its signifying manifest surroundings, as they are associated and identified albeit mistakenly with the particularized images of a picture; which is, as a concept, represented by its signifying Use with the signifying Use of other signs in manifest. Such analyses and suppositions result from the deep forgetfulness of the analytical habit reactions that operates by describing and constructing external connections between pictures without the awareness of the Use of the picture as a sign in signifying internal connections with the Use of other signs. The analytical habit reaction manifests itself by gestures and gesticulations of pointing and meaning to the associated images of pictures imagined as objective, supposed to be public as opposed to the image imagined as private. In both cases, imagination reaction manifests itself as a reactive imagination of solipsism which results from analytical thinking habits forgetful of the signifying internal connections presupposed as the possibility of pointing, meaning, showing, picturing anything with its identity and difference in language, whether the images of pictures are supposed to be “private” or “public”, as the latter and former are polar concepts presupposing and polarizing each other in the logical space of memory reactions that operates in reaction to the particular images and associations of images that resemble pictures, while missing the Use of the picture that is internally connected with the signifying use of other signs in manifest of life. Therefore, Wittgenstein always elucidates the Use of the picture with its internal connections with the use of other signs, by colliding his reminders with analytical habit reactions that tends to identify the picture as if the picture is representing its own identity; hence in oblivion and isolation of its Use which actually represents its identity and difference in internal connection with the signifying Use of other signs in manifest. Hence, he always reminds the Use of the picture as against and in contrast to habit reactions of imagining what the image of the picture resembles which trigger only the associated images of a picture in isolation from its manifest signifying surroundings.

When G.E. Moore demonstrated his hand by his gesture of showing his hand as part of the external world in order to point out that doubting is excluded as nonsensical in such cases, Wittgenstein proceeds to clarify that such a gesture of demonstration remains as a wrong gesture due to his failure of recognizing signifying phenomena in the weave of which we come to speak of our surroundings in terms of our hands and limbs and what they touch and use as “objects or experience” as “sensations of touching, seeing, or feeling” and so on. Here clarity about the grounds presupposed by our operating with signs in speaking and expressing our propositions is connected with clarity about our forms of expressions expressing certainty and uncertainty with its operational consequences needless of ascertaining by any logical demonstration or verification. On the contrary, the possibility of logical demonstration or verification presupposes the certainty expressed and shared operationally by learning to operate with rules of the language-game, as doubting makes sense only where certainty is operational.

Connected with such elucidation of signifying expressive phenomena of operating with signs and rules, such concepts as “private” and “public” are clarified from the backload of confusion that results from the analytical habit reaction expressed by the form of expressions in the form of a gesture of giving an ostensive definition directed to the images that are associated by their resemblances to the pictures of language in isolation from the use of the picture that is operational with the use of other signs internally connected with signifying phenomena in manifest. Such form of expressions express pictures of imagination which share the same confusion due to the missing awareness of how the use of pictures of language with their conceptual differences are expressed and learnt operationally with their differing consequences with the signifying use of other signs internally connected with the manifest signifying phenomena of the language-game. That arrives to clarifying that nothing is hidden absolutely, nor given as “private”, or “subjective awareness”, nor as “objective” – except by the operationally shared consequences and rules which unfold and get structured historically, in the context of a language-game, which is a context elucidated as a cross-section, as internally connected with manifest signifying phenomena, life in manifest as such.

Missing of that awareness about the picture is manifested by the form of expressions of imagination the reactions and habits of which are prompted by the varying pictures of historical language-games, which vary by the varying form of expressions of narratives which changes from mythological to scientific theories, depending on the changes of historical culture of the language-game. Thus, one is misled and separated apart by one’s own operational language and thinking habits in reaction to and with pictures of language away from the manifest sense of life, Existence as such. And hence, away from the sense of “ontopoiesis”, from the sense of the “unity-of-everything-there-is-alive…” as expressed by the form of expressions of Anna-Teresa Tymienicka.

This separation is deepened and hardened by the development of instrumental, operational pictures of language to the point of excluding the reality of manifest dream experience from wakeful experience of reality which appears to be subject to our willing and controlling with our operational habits with the use of pictures of language. The Other, which is not experienced as subject to habitual control and operational use, belongs to the manifest of life, and remains the Other of our life experience, as our life experience seems to be experienced as subject to empirical operational habits, the sense of the Other seems to be threatening, intriguing, unwelcome, irksome, mysterious. It is therefore covered, repressed and transformed by the pictures of narratives that order and explain them in accordance with the pictures that describe and order our operational activities of wakeful life experience.

It is only by considering the form of expressions shared we compare the concept of a “dream experience” with a concept of “real experience”, as the form of expressions shared expresses our sense of experiencing reality, in comparison to a form of expression that differs from it. That means to say, our sense of experience of the reality of life is learned to be experienced and expressed as a shared intentionality so to speak in phenomenological terms. The terms “subjectivity” and “inter-subjectivity” are in need of phenomenological elucidation here, considering that there is no subjectivity prior to expressive signifying phenomena, as the terms “subjective” and “objective” are concepts, the different and opposed senses of which are internally connected with manifest signifying phenomena.

Husserl’s Phenomenology started by taking consciousness always as a consciousness of something, as an intentional structure, and went to dig up the historical layers of it to come across the signifying phenomena with signifying relations, intersecting with other significations in virtuality. The term “Lebenswelt” (Lifeworld) refers to this virtuality rather than the world represented, objectified as a pole of a historically structured intentionality, as a pole of empirical subjectivity. Heidegger’s phenomenological hermeneutics thematize this signifying field as Dasein and tries to elucidate it as the possibility of tracing of all the historical changes of intentionality layered by the changing forms of expressions of it, i.e., in the form of interpretations of the surrounding world-pictures objectified. Heidegger therefore needed to clarify the modes in which things exist or do not exist for us as ready to hand, or present at hand, or not present at hand in terms of the different consequences following from their being present or being absent, as i.e., the pencil’s existence is presented by its being ready to my using it when the need arises for it, or conversely its absence is presented by the consequence manifested as a hindrance to my need for writing with it. He thus pointed out the manner in which the existents exist and appear with different identities and differences as part of the different operational consequences of surrounding horizons in connection with body’s actions and reactions in internal connection with the signifying surrounding phenomena, which the latter assumes the appearance of a world horizon objectified as a result of an intentionality structured operationally with the representations that picture conceptual identities and differences of language and culture. Hence, Heidegger thematizes the signifying manifest field of Lifeworld (Lebenswelt) in which the intentional consciousness is characterized by phenomena expressed in signifying internal connections in manifest which unfolds and structured operationally with operating with signs. Merleau-ponty contributed to the elucidation of signifying field of virtual phenomena by tracing back the sensation into the signifying phenomena internally connected as expressive phenomena with other significations in manifest, from the internal connections of which nothing is thinkable in isolation; that is to say, no-body, no-behavior, nor the intentionality as subjectivity of bodily behavior, nor any thing can be shown, or supposed to be perceived as subject to an ostensive definition. That seemed to be possible to the analytical habits of taking objects and events in the manner in which it seemed to a naive realist, or to a logical positivist, or to a logical empiricist as expressed and betrayed by the forms of expressions expressed by gestures and gesticulations of meaning and analysing a sense data, which is then exposed by Wittgenstein’s reminders that they are not essential for representation in language, like an wheel, turning nothing with itself, signifying nothing, except the fact of one’s confusions, which result from a failure of understanding about how signs operate, mean, name, picture (represent) identities and differences in the actual stream of using and operating with signs of any language-game.

Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka expresses the same insight when she points out that:

To grasp life’s patterning all should be presented at once in one cross section of an image.9

That requires starting always from the many aspects in simultaneous with their manifest spontaneity in bringing out the sense of ontopoiesis that expresses its internal logos as opposed to interpreting logos as external to the manifest of life. Her words: “Unity-of-everything-there-is-alive…” also expresses its original sense in connection with the same awareness of the virtual phenomena of life in manifest, in the signifying web of which intentionality of particularizations are expressed and structured in the form of operational habits of using signs as pictures, as means and ends of saying, showing, pointing, meaning anything.

Phenomenological movement of thinking seems therefore promising as long as it keeps up the good work of elucidating the intentional structure and behavior of historical consciousness with its internal connections with the eternal manifest moments of life. It is promising in bridging the gap with the original awareness that started philosophizing, with the original and different sense from the sense which assumed historically: which took on the particular shape of the intentionality of the thinking and philosophizing habits by constructing general pictures in the form of theories and arguments – the form of expressions of which are operationally structured to fluctuate in reaction to pictures and their associated images, always modifying and generalizing pictures, in the weave of which intentionality is layered and conditioned as historical consciousness and imagination, as historical modifications of intentionality, without however freedom of movement of thinking in distance to the historically modified intentional consciousness.

Such is the Anglo-American analytical way in which the language of philosophical analyses and forms of arguments shaped the way for philosophizing with its norms and journals and peer reviews, so far away from the original roots that started a movement of thinking peculiar to the insight which inspires to articulate a language to share its logos which is internal to it. Philosophy in its original sense of astonishment, which is prompted by the flash of an insight about manifest of life or nature, without the mediation of representational language, having found itself speechless given the established rules and representational tools of language and thinking, had to articulate a language to express its own sense of life in manifest. Such sense of life is expressed by the language of apeiron of Anaximander, by the Flux of Heraclitus and the unmoved full plenitude (that leaves no space for a movement) of Parmenides. That movement gave way on the other hand to another cultural development that created a language of picture constructions by analyses and syntheses; hence picturing Nature in accordance with the rules of constructing and comparing pictures of language; which ended up by misrepresenting and misunderstanding the identities and differences pictured. The misunderstandings and deep confusions of which still infects philosophy education and its industry, leaves us now with facing the problem of unifying the so deep fragmentation of human consciousness and world horizon, which has always been the deep concern of authentic philosophical insight. The inherent crisis of that fragmentation manifests with its own consequences in human life and culture, with its own fate (“karma”) so to speak, as was once noted by Heraclitus: “One’s character is one’s fate”. Logos in Heraclitus sense is a “call” of awareness that is addressed to awaken our deepest intelligence, and not to thinking habits structured to operate with rules and pictures of conventional, cultural, historical language-games.

Notes

  1. 1

    Heraclitus of Ephesos, John Burnet Early Greek Philosophy (Adam & C. Black, 1963) p. 133.

  2. 2

    Wittgenstein, Philosophical Remarks (Blackwell, 1975), p. 69.

  3. 3

    Wittgenstein, Zettel, 541.

  4. 4

    “When I say that I mean by substance that which is conceived through and in itself; and that I mean by modification or accident that which is something else, and is conceived through that wherein it is, evidently it follows that substance is by nature prior to its accidents. For without the former the latter can neither be nor be conceived. Secondly it follows that besides substances and accidents nothing exists really or externally to the intellect.” Spinoza, Correspondences, IV.

  5. 5

    Professor Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka’s philosophy of ontopoiesis seems to me to be such an effort to explore these significations with an eye touching and tracing their internal connections with the manifest of life of phenomena. That is an interpretative activity motivated and resonated by the same live movement in manifest.

  6. 6

    Philosophical Remarks, Foreword; Ed. By Rush Rhees and translated into English by Raymond Hargreaves and Roger White (Blackwell, 1975).

  7. 7

    “We fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and powerful.” Wittgenstein , Phil. Inv., 129.

  8. 8

    The concept of “Lifeworld” (“Lebenswelt”, “vivencia”: Ortega y Gasset) of Phenomenology is elucidated by Wittgenstein’s reminders assembled as “language-games” which present “cross strips” cut out so to speak from the signifying manifest stream of phenomena as the background internally connected with our showing, pointing, naming, giving an ostensive definition of any thing or event in physical and temporal space of acting and operating with our memory habits shared and kept by our learning and acting with the rules of the game. The internal connections of manifest signifying phenomena are elucidated as the possibilility of defining and describing external connections between signs as “word” and “object” the actual identities and differences of which are represented by their differing uses and significations objectified as objects or events ordered in physical and temporal space. The missing awareness of the whole manifest life experience manifests by being conditioned to operate with memory habits in reaction to pictures of language, hence confusing pictures used as means of representation with pictures represented as reality, due to the missing awareness how language phenomena, forms of our expressions manifest as internally connected with the signifying phenomena in manifest.

  9. 9

    A.-T. Tymieniecka, Logos and Life (Kluwer, Book 4) p. 5.