The older I get, the more profound John 1:1 becomes. Despite the hyper-modern skepticism about language's ability to communicate Truth (i.e., universal objective God-created), I'm continually reminded of just how profound language is...literally and as a metaphor.
But, until this past Sunday, I had never considered the following: would it be possible to (a) create a universe, and (b) create humans in God's image, without language?
I have some awareness of various materialist efforts to define demarcation criteria for what makes humans distinctive. The relatively recent resurgence of monism has made this kind of approach politically incorrect (note that we can't say false, much less False (appeal to reason) ...nor can we say unhelpful (appeal to pragmatism)...all we can say is that it's unpopular with those in power).
Regardless, those efforts often focused on language as a key criterion that might or might not separate humans from non-humans. They included well-publicized attempts to teach chimps to "speak"...whether or not this was successful depends on how you define speech.
I'm not a linguist, but my snap reaction on Sunday was to wonder:
1. Would it be possible to create laws of physics that would allow for the communication, storage, and processing of abstract concepts in the form of an Image (not symbols/language)?
2. And, if you could, would it be possible to also create an apparatus (in human form) that would be able to both (a) survive at a concrete level (e.g., walk, detect threats, etc), and (b) reason at an abstract level?
I suspect not, but I doubt there's any way to really explore this very deeply....unfortunate since it appears that information technology is beginning to explore the use of visual metaphors (think the iPhone GUI (or NUI)).
So, why bring this up? In part, it's because we live in a culture that is deeply in love with the Image. If Truth (or even truth) is not possible, then Meaning/Purpose/Telos is in serious trouble (at least for social creatures).
Images avoid these unpleasant discussions about the True, the Good, the Beautiful (well maybe not the last...can't quite erase every trace of being created in God's image). Images just are.
Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a recent critique of this trend....from text to image, from reason to emotion, from complex depth to simplistic superficiality.
The reactionary rebels against what seems to be an assault on a core aspect of being human...our reason. The romantic revels in the constant swirling of emotive imagery and sound.
I suspect most of us relate to both perspectives. But, we're all probably more influenced by the dominant image-centric culture than we realize.
Which implies that we should be much more skeptical about imagery than we are about language...partly because of its unquestioned primacy, and partly because of the power of its emotive unreason.
In the beginning was the Image?....no, in the beginning was the Word. In, I suspect, more ways than one.
Neil Postman's book is great reading. One of the ironies of an image based culture is that while we have been lead to believe that "sight" is the most credible source of accuracy, in reality the more culture perfects its ability to project "image" the less trustworthy the very concept of "image" becomes. Could it be that walking by faith is indeed better than walking by sight?
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman's book is worthy reading. One of the ironies of an image based culture is that while we have been conditioned to believe that image is the most accurate form of witness, in reality the more sophisticated society becomes at image manipulation the more susceptible we are to being deceived. Seeing is no longer believing for the critical thinking. Maybe a slight twist on Edward Bulwer-Lytton's observation is in order . . . . "The Pen is Mightier than the Pixel."
ReplyDeleteTwo snap reactions...
ReplyDelete1. The whole image-text discussion is wide and deep. I'll refrain from diving into a discussion of sensemaking (I have different blog on that topic). I'll just note echo Postman in noting that images just "are" ... they are not rational or irrational; they're arational. Which means that there's no conceptual thinking possible about the good/true/beautiful without language.
2. "Faith" is an ambiguous word in the West these days. The common use is synonymous with "blind"; i.e., impervious to reason and evidence. The Biblical use is very much grounded in evidence and reason (e.g., Jn 20:31), one of the things that makes it unique in world religious texts. See, especially, Paul's claim that if it is not empirically true that Jesus rose from the dead, our faith is worse than worthless. A Biblical faith is not only warranted belief "that" something happens/existed/is true, but also belief "in" God and His Son. The "blind" definition arose in the wake of the Cartesian retreat to a human-centric skepticism...I don't think someone can live consistent with that definition since it denies the existence of all that is good/true/beautiful. We are in part spiritual beings and cannot exist in a purely materialistic frame.
BTW, sorry so slow moderating this...you can tell how long it's been since I checked this blog... :-)