Empirics or to Be within a Word.
The starting point for any empirical language principle, has paradoxically to be what must be assumed. Or to put it a little better, what must not be confused. There is no empirics of language which proceeds from initial uncomplex principles. It is now a hackneyed point, and yet no less true that language cannot be learnt empirically – Grammar structures are too complex for that. The world is too complex for that. Complex empiricism, has principles that then must start within the rules of grammar, and within the rules of having a language. Or better, then must be what hollow out those rules, fabricating them into the world, and yet in doing so subverting them. At this point, however another factor enters in. I is of course the hidden problem of rationalist theoriest of language that they are just that: Rationalist. Grammer or words are presented as if they were deep structure; as if they were deep algebra within the mind. That old deep empirical problem of kind exploration of structure, in which meaning is smuggled into a hard strucure, and gently negiocated within it ( I look at you when I talk – I sing with you), is lost . It is this lost that emprics must start with. That is, with the problem of what it feels like to make a language within a structure: what circumstances allow for that making.
Altro Altro:
Perhaps the point here (to loosely subvert Gellner’s last work) in that one needs a double trap to catch an empricism of language within on the one hand, the language empircist, (unlike the more content, if more sceptical Humean norm) is clearly the prison dweller beloved by Gellner. The very quest for meaning, for a significance beyond itself, locks the empricist in a prison. Here he sits in th dark, and John Bapsite does I the opening chapter of little Dorrit. A man convicted of smugglin, who sits in the dark, while the gent of of identity, the assassin Blandios hogs the window, and hogs the light. Moreover Baspiste is convicted of smuggling, the arch linguistic sin. For what else is ‘meaning’ but an act of smuggling? That is of hiding within one value the goods of quite another determination? O to put it better, there is a criminal fragility within words. That is within the arbitariness of their meaning. If one spots the trick one, that words are air, then one feels cheated – and locks meaning a prison,where its very light source is eclipse by the talk of the self (who cheats at cards, and so gains ll the food). The empricist, the smuggler of meaning, is then a man who goods are deprived, as he sits in a jail, be the self. And yet that self I strangely dependent upon his servant, of meaning, and dependent on him in two ways.
The first relate to the second sense that the linguistic empricist is imprisoned. Not only is the caught up in the world of identity, and in the establishment of a truth beyond the world, but also he is, by an internal rule of his own apparently fericously aware of the world itself. He therefore ways knows time and place, as if inbuilt. Bapsite daws a map of the mediterrian, fixing Marseillies upon the map, and knows whe nDinner is,and how long he and Balndios have beenn prison. This information is clearly never learnt. He merely knows he was it inbuilt (as a rationalist would say). And yet to Bapiste of course it never quite feels inbuilt. It is not tht this is a law, which he follows (to see him this way would be to treat him simply as a smuggler). It is rather a collection of the paths or threads – or better the framework wittin which he weaves his life:a framework within can be drawn out, and drawn on the dust, and yet that drawing out is not itself significant to Bapiste himself. It is Bandois, tht is the self, who demands to know the time and where they are. It is the self then who gives signifiance. To the empricis of the langauge itself, the structures are merely another aspect of the prison. They are only different in that, he is aware his ability to know time and space is also an act of imagination (akin to the other acts he performs – such as cutting his bread up), an no more.
This last point then leads to another feauture of this oddest of prisioners (one which Blandios, abagin the self is strangley caught up it) . Bapist has three gifit, which mean thathe is never actually simply imprisoned, inspite of whatthe stodgy world of meaning would wish. Firstly he has the power to imagine himself in th lap of luxury. In reality Bapiste has nothing, no good food, no light, only the darkes tof corner that the selfish-Blandois allows to him.And yet he manages to wrongfoot the self by enjoying his own sacnt food more than ever the self, howver rich its actult food itcan. Bapiste therefore takes the ichoate mass of hrd bread and cuts and re-cuts it into any food he likes, imagine as he eats it that is is as he has fashioned it. A Knife, and a stuff is therefore enough to give such and give delight – enough to give a degree of meaning. Secondly, he has thepower to siclally reach beoydthe prison.The jail keepr, and his child talk to Bapiste, and are caught by his charm He in sense escapes his prison in social itneracion (is a way Blndois cannot). Indded the sight of another lads Blandios to feeling more trapped, just as it free Bapiiste.the sicual Bapiste cannever be simle imprisioned therefore.the very actof imprisinoing him always his some esacpe. Int his a song, which repeats then across the book is vitl. The song , a child song issungintially by the jail keepers child. Bapsitse joins in the chorus. They wiat to here him sing the chrus, and yet then hear his voice, sigingit again as they leavethe prisoners. Bpiste’s ice esacpes then whnen his presence does not. that is his power to be caughtb up ni anothwrs lfe, remains, and remains utterly an inprisonable, ven when the empricists himself is caught.
It is this last aspect which then captures up Blandis (whichis h last of these freedomd). Blandois is painfully aware of this escape. He adopts the song itself, and Bapiste as his servant., hiping no doubt that Bapsites freedom will somehow rub of on himself. And yt it is a misake for the self simply to attemot to ride the back of the freedom on the emoirical meaning giver. He might force temporality that empricist into his service, and take over the singing of the sing (Arthur hears him sing it latter), and yethe is trapped by both these act. On the one hand Arthurs realized that Bapiste knows Blandois though the fact that they both singthe childs song. It is this knowledge that means that Bapiste evewntually finds Blandois (after first saying he did not know whee to look for the disappeared self – and yet that was no matter, as courage would be enough to find him0. Secondly the poison of servant is a problematic on. Initially Blandois attemts to enforce Bapsite to be his servant.When they meet again in the Spane valley, he therefore suggests that Bapsite follows his as his man. And yet, this very ac comes back to haunt Blandios, and Bapsite only eventually ‘becomes his servant inorder to spyupon his, tn the interests of Clennam. Hence all cases of capture, by the senlf are sbverted, and pulled into methods of resitsitenc.
The Empricists is hard to simply impirsion therefore. on the one hand, he lies in th jail, cut of from light by the high way, in whicha re set view windows, and by the bulky prsence of the selfish assassin; who appeas to be endlessly inventing a new form of prison for him (or developing a sense the prison should last beyond the walls themselves). And yet is s just that prison which thenenfolds Blandois, curshing him eventually ni the moment of his final triumph. Or to put is otherwise, where Gelener, inspite of all hi wit (and wisdom)is wrong, is in the ver nature of th prison even an empicist who is rooted in meaning faces. The point is not that the ‘prisoner’ is tragically lonely – he is never loney. He sees a world beyond any prison9in magine, and according to all the resources or rationalism, whicha ee also at his disposal). He has the power then to reach out of the prison, by mingling his meanings, that is his voice within others: a power which then traps other attempts (by ht fellow prisoner te self) to capture meaning.
Or reahps to bring this round more to bare of Gelnner (rather than Dickes0. in his last book Gellner argued that Wittenstien revolved around to diffeent prisoners. On the one hand there was the conventional emircial prisoner (here by and large undersood by Blandios). A man of reality and actuality. A man, who is caught within a Lockean losest, in which only certain experiences tumble, experience that hen allow such a prisoner somekind of (rather poor) viewpoint upon the world. But also, and in the very same prison, there was a second prisoner, what of theman socially adift. A mn who knows thabeyond the prison there was a world of laghter of cscoaliblity, but that, he (lacking any roots0 was not able to gain access to such a world. Wittnestien, ellner suggests hooks up these prisoner togther. The empricists offers, through their knowledge of learning,thoughtheir knwoeldge of langage (which is learnt), a wayin which (through language0 the second prisoner, the lonely man cut off from cultre, can escape. Langauge becomes the key aspect of meaning. Langauge becomes the key to undersanding the world, and understanding, which then allow everyone as they speak ohave a language of their on – there own dialectic. The very ‘loneliness’ of the mepricis, there very idiosycracy, is therefore the key to differenerece the mawothout out value, the cultural refugee lacks. Togtehr they esacpe. In the Dicekens version, whoever thyey prisoner are not quite so simple. On the one hand he emeicists lacks the key to lanagge 9which lies in the ability to engagewith others0. he lacks therefore the point of leabving the prison directly, and can only look beyond the prison wall, obsuring the light. His point of scape lies thn not within his fellow cirmialm but rather with the distortion of the facds at a trial. The Sef claims its freedom (and claims to be a gentlemen) because nothing canner quite bite it. Nothing can be made to stick. The law and the self, eldue one another. The Other cirimnal, is where language really resides, in an empirical form which is of course the ittenstien form). It is included not within the empricist of the light,so muchas the deweller of the dark. The dweeler who nows that to reach other people one does not simply need t climb beyond the prison walls, and think tht the act of clmbing was enough. On the contrary to esacpe, one needs to engage with other aroud one (includingthe sef, who one captures in that engagement). The Prison is then only poitn in the compass (and the time) of the world. The prison is only a temporary location, for the smullger, and one fro whicht heyare always aleady eascpaing(and even as they are escaping they are finding new menis to trap the self).
But cutting across these prelmary remarks, iste starting point of the theory of empirical language, a starting point cobveryed in a single world “altro’. This is a word, whichdickens suggests, is like a piece ofbread – it canbe cut into many meanings deenfding on inclination = to quote
“ The word being according to Genoese emphaisis, a confirmaion, a jcntradiction, an assertaion, a denial, a taunt a compliment, a joke and fifty other things, become in the present instance, with a significance beyond all power of written expression, our fmilar Enlgish ‘ ibleieve you’.
Altor is less a word, and more a geography of internatino and meaning. The same world, is always also all the rest: It is then like Hueman passion, or spinizaian affect – it is declined in a certainly way, it is givien a certain meaning, here ‘I Believe you’, and yet within that menaing are the baouqest of complication. It is a word that esacpe is meaning, in its very alterication. A word for whom the slightest shift inemphaisis in pronounciatino, rendered utterly unstanble. Alto is also as appears latter in the conversaion an aplogy.
The single word then shifts the dense tha menaing is givien. on the one hand it is clear that meaning, is defined by alrtro – te word of many meanings. Or for better bettewr, meaning is regivien. A wor,d such as Altro,laguage finds its own inner dyanami – that is it s own sense of emaning a plurality of different things. Here one needs t make a very caefu distinction. It is already clear that geography of passions will be important,in its own pricnople (which will be discussed in the nextof these essasys). But this geogroahy, rests on the fact that evwery element of the worold necessarily contins a plurality of relities within it: Each experience id therefore he locus point from which becomings fly off. This is not quite the same within lngauge. In reality the very vividiness of the impression demands this sens eof flying off into reality.In language there is no vividnedd. On the cotnraty, theorectically at least, what is real, involves a meaning which is caught.the point meaning flies o, is not in a sense givien in the word itself. indeed essentially the very fact that meaning doesso fly is itself an anaethma to the giving of meaning itself.Atro is the word which reaches beyond itself – which insuates itself,, hooking up within others, and with the way they are listening to the lagige, with the way they are reacting to it.language becomes them not about the great (or even the little0 events of words: Say this word, and meaning ((all possible meaning flows). But rather it onvovles a highly complex and utterly nuances degree of communication and reworking through. Each point means and remeans what it is. The point then with the word Altro is not that is has ll eamnings. Dickns is very careful to say that it does not. at each point, ni each situationit has just the one meaning. A menaign wihichs givien within a social reaction 9and which nicldues a sliding resigitser to the other meaning – andyet also precludes them0.
Aktor is the not a sight of hand, more a simple act of statemenet (or even occlusion), so much as a social act of decining. Its meaning are as a verb, whose exact denotionation is givien in the thsocial situation. A erb whose case and sense, and person, is never simply fixied: it is rather a social constaruct, and oned sure enough, andyet owned always collectively. Its owndership is ewhat is fixed betewewn people. That between them falls the mystery, or the reality of other possible defintino, other possible meanings. Its meaning is therefore unsale as the human empathy upon which it is carried (an empathy the selfish Balndios witness, and envies, and yet cannot simply share).
Words become therefore , a matte of negoications, and mutuality, evne as they are caught by meaning. Of erhaps better world becomes lss about meaning, and utterly freed from the high polticis of the event, and more a means of scultputre andreowrking. Aociety sculpts the world sof evets in it inlcnation, and its cross fertilisation. One could one supposes say this makers the point the social itself become the event, and yet to make that claim would be to risk missing the meaning of what is happening here. What matters is not the social 9which does nt exist anyway without the word0, but the pslding mingling pact sealed up in the shfty egiesteres of the word altro itself. te social only contains all the menaing, because of this elusive pact, and it is a rationalist mistake to loose sight of this fact.
That is, this the the point the mpricist no doubt letsout a ,ong sigh of contnentment. Hapy as they are that they do not have to concern thesmevles with the bete noir or rationalisms straight meaning. The emeiricist knows all that meaning tself has almost nothing todo with the kind of society in hich it inhabits (Gellner is right to cirituque Wittenstien at thuspojt). Menaing and language (as the empiricst uses it) really have rather little to say to each other. The point is not the stodgy world of what can be said (and what societies are needed for the saying of it),so much as what quite packs can subvert what realities and when (and how). Meaning exists to be reworked in the social (and not constticted by it ). \
Altro , then offers lines to esacpe by (Deleuzian lines of flight)- but only in conversation. Not the ‘big conversations’ of Deleuzian nightmares, but the small altenight discussion, where philosophy tself can come into th frame. It aims not then are truth or sody union, but rather inanimate one to one converstaino, conversaion, whose idoscryancy remodelslangauges and its realion, as they are givien, bu dos so only as long as the pact itself last. Akto becomesthen a name, a tagbywhich bapiste, ow in Enlgand is known by. More thn hat it becomes akey to a very prosnal lnagaige of value and beloning which Bapsiste beoces caught up with, in blleding yard.
Altro is the name, that Pancks gives him, caling him by it, when Bapiste has seen Blndois again, and has been terrified by he fac. It serves then to introduce another asect of private language. The wive of plornish the pllater (who had befeiended both pancks and Baspiste0, and Bapsite himself become inaged within as private converstation. The converasatino is characterized by the fac that mr Plornishimgaines that see can ‘speak Iialin’, but which she means that she can don a cod itialian accident. This accent thenhas the effect of creang a private language between mrs plornish and Baspite.she asks him question in here own way, he respond, and she interprets to the onlookers 9all of whom know that Baspite can infact by this time speak perfect English on his own account). On the face of it, this is merely another
Moement of high Xickens humour. And it s certainly that. But ghiddne in th laughter is of course a serious point.In making this slient ack with Mrs Pancks, Baspiste is carmed down – is first instictis to fell britian are mitigated,a nd he knows hat hhe ha friend enough to resist, or possibliy to resists the power of the selfish-Blandois (tht is the agenthood of selhood0. talking in a shared nonsense language therefore allows him to both communicate what he would otherwise have found quite uncommunicateble, but also to resists – or define an access for resitance.
If one likes 9and here one is developing the narrative – we wil lcome back to philsiphy latter). Ths conversation in cod latin is one of the truning point sof htebook. I tis the moement that Bapsite feels he can resist the blansihments of his estwhle fellow jailmate. The resitence is then ciritical as it is only once he has such a courag, that Bapaiste is able to first find then track Blanadios, a tracking which (as has already been discussed) eventually leads to Blandois death. This tirck, ths koke, an its consequecneaare theefore the poijtnwhere one of the complex plots of the novel turns. The Effect of the pact selaedby Bapiste and r plornish therefore matter of no little conseqence.
In terms f the philosophy the message is also rather lcelar I is this connvewrsation,held in the protective wallsof the happy house (a house decorated with a fakemural of a rural cottage), that a language is developedwith must elude that man of th world Blandois. Balndois, of course spoke many lanaguges, as a Gentlemen, and as a tavelly. But in thr happy lanauge, in the cod Italian a lanaguge could be delveoped between two people Bapsiste and his Padroa, which could not be seen or heard by Bladois. A provate lanagge, whos meaning was really given in the fierce protection 9or behalf of the padorna) for bapiste, and his appreaciatino of that protecino. Indded thisprotection, within al its falsity of toung and falsigtyof architecture (no itial is sp[oen, and ht happy cottage remains a hovel) which then gves Bapsite his confindence. Morevoe rit allows him to communicate what is necessary – that thereis a menance, a bad man about, without ever forcing him th idenitiy (at this point) who that Bad man was, and how he met him. He converstation then imparts a dread whoch is unspoeken to the res of the company – a drea dwhich sit hen strnagley fitting the the enigmatic (and highly destructive) nature of Blandois himself, and moreover of the atmosphere of the novel itself (whos secret – tht Aethur s not the son of Mrs Clennam, Blandois knows). The privat langue therefore at once clam Bapiste down, allowing him the begin to esacpe in his mind the power of Blanaiiod, but also in oding so replectate, for the first time, in the minds ofhis hears a dread, associated with Blandios, that in a ssnense overhangs the entire novel. Tagt is the knwoeldge that there is some dreadful secret, and this secret is appsciated within Balndios.
The pact therefore wnet far beyond the convernstaion itself. However that ging beyond was once again not the relatively simply repeating to different of the disjunctive event. Such an event reapts in the memory, changing and rechaning minds. This language rather works notin memoryor occasion, so much as in inolvkoin and splicing. A feeling which was already there, already overhanging the entre book, is in the feeling bleneded within soemthign quite different, anf a new conjunction formed. This conjunction is no simple synthesis. Itodes not simply unite te two into a third, nor does it simple create an endless corss exachnge between united lements(disjunctive sysntehesis0. on the contrary the conjunction is one of cotnainement and inolvcation, rather that maixim communication that is nothing is corss feritlized in the minds of the hearers. No dpuble imgae. It is rather that the baddest man in the world ins in the mdist 9as they are in a novel whiith a secret). The Baddest man is then adequate to containing that secteet; and yet at the same time 9as wil be revealed of course at the end) the secret itself contains also the baddest of men, in that it forms the natural limt to his life.. An extra dimension to be developed is thereby givien,a dimension somehow iking two elements which at the current time appear only defined within an acess of mutually containment. Each holds the other, with no real resaolution. A feeling which then overhangs the ta (unti lClennam hisf arrives0.
Private lanagauge therefore allow unspeakable truth to eerge, and be nuances. A truth which steades the never of it empricial nnunicator, evne as it depresses the spirit of its heares. The rpoboem thenis exactly what lanagage can develop his privaelangauge, and the truth it has stumbled upon.?
Here once agaijn the language refister shifts init wo directions. Firstly in the contrast to the past. Arthir, in talkingto Bapiste about his knedge of Blandois, provoes in the Titalian a sppage of word order. For Bapiste to go back intot rh pas is for his language to change. For rhtur to follow tht chnge is then for him to explore what Bapiste knows empirical language demands, if people are to lumb the secrets hidden within it, that they follow its paths, andrigour.I is not enough to simply say what had been. One must relive it. Langage and memorythereforte mis togtehr (and Bapiste neds up miming of the nature of Blandios – the assassn).
The empirical past conjured by the emepircof langaue 9always on th demands of anotehr0 in therefoee a past, whose nature is givien in word use, and use reality in miming or acing. What s acted is of course here not simply the memoery itself. on the contrary Bapsite is miming more th knowleleg from the past he has. Or better,he recounts thatpast in brigue, demanding thatx Arthur enter into that past, into the language of that past in he hearing of it – and understands it as past ( Baposte therefore uses the names blandois had donned in thatpas – Rigau and Ligand0. he only emerges from thatpast in acting out the nature of the assassin n the present, in leaping at the bill as if 9if whe were ‘northen at least’) he was mad the past captures Arthur therefore, while bapiste emerges in gesture is shouting in defiance, in reliving an assoaisn, in the present It is then in this present he is rebound back into the past, and done so b arhture.
That is to Baspiste the story of Blandios, and the emerges into thepresent, that is into the fac that he never wantsto go near Blandois the assion againa, finish the mttwr, Blandios is the present to him, he hopesonly in the past. Arthur turns him back onto the very pressing nature in the present of that past. Tah tis it matters that Blandios is found, and Bapiste, relaizing this, turns to a new language once again.
To enter into the past of empirical langauge, is at once to follow then is speech patterns in into that past. One mind needs to revolve around what has been (this is of course in a sense what mrs plornish new – but she did not follow that past so much as offered it comfort, albeit from a distance). It is though, to at the same time loose control of how the very force which conjures up that past reacts in the present (where it emerges to repudiate, that which that other principle of story telling sees now clearly). It is therefore to have to rebound the agent of empiricism back into language, and force it into yet another combination.
Thus far, therefore Altro has been pulled out of its simple definace, and into a private language. This is the language of consollance. A langauge that has then, being associated with a past, pulled into another language, a language of the past, which would, have escaped any other hearer than the story teller, who takes up that langauge and rebinds it into the plot. (That is Arthur Clennam).
The The sound of words thereby conform t a highly nuanced four way axis.
One axis revolves around that alchemy of language, which takes random sounds and locates them into as locus of meaning. This locus, has a maeaning way beyond the mere formal defintiion of the word. For Bapitise to say Altro, or for him to call Pancs senior Panco, or Mrs Plornish Padrona, is for him to create words whose meaning is never give indeed Pancs reaction to being called Panco , strictly placed in between different formal languages (one needs o remember that this is one of the vey few times in Little Drorit that Pancks is said to be surprised: nothing normally surprises him.) The Empirical dynamics of language (which no doubt arise from the rationalist rage to find meaning), The rage itself looks to definitions (a child’s pointing and asking ‘what’s that’). And yet empiricism takes up meanings, and makes the sounds themselves into a palate of meaning. The sounds, which remain caught with the constellations of meaning that language has built for itself ( a Japanese child eventually says different sounds to and eurpopean one,) Empricial Langauge however does not smply honour this division (while bing configured wihin it). On the contrary it pitches him sounds whose non-meaning is situated in between meanings: it resonates across them.
However in the context of Altro one needs caution here. The disjunctive synthesis hat naturally arises here is not quite the same as other disjunctive synthesis (in little dorrrit elsewhere). The synthesis is therefore very different from the naming of Tattycoram. This name is given to their unfortunate maid by the Meagles who at once ‘adopt’ her as a penniless orphan, but also enslave her. The name communicates this profound unease. TattyCorm s at once daughter and servant, Pet’s pet, and Pet;s slave. Both elements are here, and both wax fumiously togther in here name. Such a name is therefore very much in the gnera of adeleuzian portmanteau word. A word who dual meaning brings togther elements that (furilous fuming and fumingly furious) that were otherwise apart. Tatty Coram is therefore at once decorous and part of the ornaments of the Meagle house, and decorus, a person of decorum; and they the decorum is itself tatty, and frayed. There is a real poverty within its assumed wealth (as there is something quietly missing from the Meagles hearts). Moreover Tatty itself is a adisjunctive name: at once the respectable Harriet, but also a joke on poverty (and lack of respectability). While in a slightly different register, Coram is caught up in a double disjunction of its own, but one this time with what it is not, rather than what it is. Mr Meagles says her original surname what Beagle; and yet as she was illegitimate this was merely an arbitary assignation, and one Mealges cannot except, on the grounds that Bealges dressed in their full robes of office were the veritable terrors of the poor. Meagles therefore changes the surname to Coram, after the founder of the institute in which h found the unfortunate Tattycoram. The name Corma is atonce a relation with no name for Tatty had no right with one), but also with thepercieved difference between the immediate ‘benefactors’ of the poor (the Bealges), who are often their oppressors; and that more distant benefactor who founded an institute for illegitimate children, and thereby no doubt received much acclaim from the wider society; which did not of course think to challenge or change ts own attitude to such children (and therefore why the institution itself was necessary) ‘Coram ‘ as a name takes blend together the complex affects which accompanies Tatties illegtamcy. On the one hand all is dark: Te eagles applaing; Tatiies status as having no name, and no right impossible; tatty herself deprived of family being put at the mecy of others; Affects that no wonder make poor Tatty scream. On th other is all the kindness, of Beagle, of benefactor andof emagles, a kindness which aises in pty, and is (at times) real enogh. Tese two, lyin asthey do in the name Coram,create an uncomfortable blend ( tatty is gently Feriocus, and Feriously gentle); unti lTaty can bare it no longer, and runs away with Miss Wade.
Just Disjunctive synthesis erupt therefore as it were from inside the rationalism of language itself. that is within a single language, and as the definitions within that language are pitched beyond themselves . Or better they open out into an abyss of splits of meaning by which definitions are constructed (in the above example, it is not lost of Dickens and Bealges and Meagles are different in only one letter, and that Meagles anger at a Beagle is more complex than it might otherwise seem). Meaning splits, as it is given as is (is a disjunctie synthesis) reconfigured into that rationalist dream of as system (even if this is a system based upon difference, and so nonesnes). Baptiste’s project is however rather different .Te Disjunction is less about the gap betweent he meaning of words,a nd more about he warping of one language into another, and one series of sounds into another. To call Pancks Panco, is to pull the London pancks, whose intrigues all involve debt and loans, into quite a different animal: the possibility of the Italian Pancks (a possibly made more real because Amy herself was it Italy), caught up in endless plots, and intrigues (watching as an assassin might, the ways of that assassin blandios). To be Panco, is therefore to have already enter down the byways of becoming Italian; or being somethign else, and Bapsite, in his language, it is demands that meanings are always in the process of being warped into soemthign else registers this becoming otherwise.
A word is heard as a meaning, but a meaning whose resonance slips into exepreince which were never ones own, and which defy simple meaning (Panco never could exist). Meaning looses tis supremacy, and looses it not to being in two disjunctive parts, but rather to a warp, which is neither internal or external, but rather, pitched on the level of experience. Experience that takes what one is, with all its fixities and abilities and opens that it on being what it was not (and does so as the condition it was at all). Empirical disjunctions (roughly equivalent to Deleuzian Becoming) need not be to same as rationalist ones (the convention Disjunctive synthesis), a point whose power it took Deluze’s life as a peerless philosopher to reveal (in What is Pilosophy).
However there is clearly rather a different axis also at work, cutting into this disjunctive axis , and pulling it also otherwise. Langauge is always also a rhythm, and Bapiste is the master of empirical rhythms. The ‘cod Italian; he speaks to Mrs plornish, is a language whose rhythm is pitched between English and Italian. or rather is the aping (or the tumbling) of English into Italian. Liekwiwse the language which takes him back into the past takes on the accident but also the rhythm of Italian itself , but this time expresses in terms of English. Or once again when he is talking, more relaxly or at least natural to Clennam, the point his Enlgish breaks down is the speed of the adverb in English. Baspiste wishes his adverbs to be longer and adds extra syllables (consequementtaly rather than consequently), as if verbs and cation cannot be described too much.
This rhythm has a dual effect. One tone one hand it is very clarify the rhythm of language itself (the speed and inclination of Altro) that allow language to be personal. It is in talking is certain way, in donning an accent that Bapiste enter into the unique bonds which allow meanings to flourish. Intimacy is therefore a matter of rhytms communicating a level of meaning far beyond the words ithemsleves. A rhythms that takes one into happy homes (even falsely painted ones) and into the past of blood and action. Or once again in telling the sotry of his tracking down blandio, where he pauses as Dickens says with a ‘significant Italian rest on the world “But”’. That is, the rhythms of Italian convey the high drama of the moment .
Rhythms therefore course up an a narrative of meaning, but also an intimacy, it drags the listener into the langauge anf forces them to be swept along it is. This is of course no surprise. Hume noted that to find an englishmen in China is to find a friend. A friendship no doubt, in part based on the intamcy of the language that exists between them that is the sense that sharing a rhythm makes the language itself intimate. Bapiste of coure adds te extra dimension hear of allowing others to entre into that intimacy. The become swept along by it, there passions reflecting its rhythms and flows. Baipste here is perhaps lbehaivng hear like that silent agent which warps accent, such that individuals pick up the accent of the country they are in a way almost too sublte to here (Amrican English rhythms is so different to the rhythm of British english, and one can have a British or Americian accent and yet still speak in the rhythms of the other language.
Bapsite therefore drags people along to share in the rhythms of the langauge he uses – a rhythmsthat can communicate so much more than mere words alone. Here it is perhaps the case the a baby learns with the sounds it makes the rhythms of the language it will spea, long before the langaue itself (a happy Goo is different from sad, which is different for quizzical).Bapiste’s innocence which is said to be childlike is so very genuine . It is then this inncoecne that goes under or around other humans, erupting within them, forcing them to rework themselves otherwise. or better it lulls them into a false sense of security. They turn around onlistening only to find they have been swept up in another tale, by a strange wizard who felt of no consequence, and yet demanded that they shared in experiences beyond themselves 9what else is language one might ask here).
However there is clearly asecond aspect to Bapiste language use. His adverbs reamin recaligent. They almost (alone) pose an obsitcale to hishears. They gven s it were tht moement English(the language he is of course speaking0 breaks own, and is faced with the fact that it is against soemthign rather diffeetet from it. Even more importantly, this reak happens of the ualficaino of verbs. Iis almost as if Bapsite cannot bare to simply leave the verb, and te way it is done. as if to leave the sense that its meaning can be (endlessly0 qualified,evening te same word, had itself inesitibalbe value and purpose. Langauge therefore, orrather the rhytm of language judders o a halt at the point the agents of its silent communication, becomes enamoured of what he is communicating. Th communictates thequalficiaion of verbs (the way o speak0, a communication which for him is endless, and yet which hs listeners wish to grasp an move on from.
A thrdaxis then exists within the sounds of words itself. it has already been remarked that words clearl clreate a new and very different locus point to meaning. All passion are complex. All words are complex. Each therefore always contain other experession, other dimension of communication, and yet the two re utterly at odds. Each will then use the other is its schemes, and its ‘definitions’ and yet do so is way that is founded almost on its failure to adequately comprehend the other’s concerns. A world, therefore ruthless gathers point sof reference to itself, and does so irrespective of meaning or consequence: and also master with a fierce joyous abandon the world of Coram ,and Tatty) word meaning is thereby naturally disjunctive, because world enfold many elements many passions, many memories simply as a matter of course. This enfolding is not then one of union (and perhaps synthesis here is the wrong world), these experiences are conjoined or conjuncted: each experience merely bred and rebred int to others with such rapiditty that one cannot think of on save in th other (or feel one without the other: a situation which (and Humes says) is bound o produce new feelings, felling that then merely add to the cannon of thoughts.
Language becomes therefore at once a very poor way to explore the world of passion, and yet also a highly creative way. Words cannot map out a simple unconscious of passion. Nor can they hold any clue about the nature of BEING (s hediegger in the end releaized). On the contrary the are pitched beyond the world of passions, which they necessarily endlessly and productively rework. A speak is to amulgum the passion, and provoke the new therefore. Aktro is a wor dof profound conseqeucne and creativity.
Word engross passion, annexing them to themsevles. And yet elsewhere, in and at a rhythm which is so very different.. Sounds split up within the same passion – allowing one to endlessly re describe it. Each description will of course at once modify aspects of the passion (allowing one to return to it again and again), ad yet the hard fist of the passion will remain resilient, and seen. It will remain itself, known only in its ability to endlessly produce new words, new association. To speak Italian is therefore at once to think so very different to an Englishman (one can act in a way that would be mad if one were English). And yet, and yet, th passions are also the same (is cobbled to together otherswise),a demand the splitting of of words , in the analugum of language endlessly new ways, new forms to describe and comprehend them . Baspitse feeling of fear when he sees Blandios in the Soane valley again, can only be expressed by flight. That is he has no other means to elude it, than feeling across country (and so across words), feeing into another lagauge (english), were the fear can be expressed (although only in dialetic). Once this fear is addressed, once it is expressed 9to the storyteller, who apprioritately is the master of both arts), than Baspiste can stand firm (he therefoe is freed up to volunteer to be the servant of Blandios, and thereby play the role of known spy – the irony being that Blandios, who had attempted to force Bapistet o be his ervant, now wishes him to be no servant of his. Langauge therefore flees in the face of strong passion (or wanders – unable to find words, just as passion and made to rework themselves in words).
A final axis at play in empirical language is of course mannism. Bapiste communicates bodily. In particularly, he has a ‘significant finger’ , but which he answers questions and reworks plans, or adds emphasis, deeding (as wit altro) on the consequence. And yet with this expectation. Where Alto existed as a word for all to here, and mull over the waving of the finger is a more complex concern. On the one level, it is very public (as is Altro).a finger is waves for emphasis in the telling of a story. Meaning is such a case at once overflows the words, and yet then is coantined within a simple action. It is public in its very containment: that in he fact that while t might exceed what can be said in words, it is still caght within a fiitne world or gesture: Within a limited mime ad a silence. Henc Bapsitse in describing his finidnf of Blaindios pauses at the But (as mentioned above0, and cconverys the worry, the fear, the joy and the difficulty of his successful search in silene and in the moving of his figure. One is caught up, and caotnied not in the gap between words, both much as in the supsensino of a single word. The But is repeated. The figure is waived therefore witni the gap of its meaning (or better it is waved, such that within a single meaning,wiha single word, many passions might chase themselves across the mind: Alto has become a piece for mime).
But same gesture, the same fingure is also a private language, or better the answer to an unspoken question. It changes or partially resovles the qestion, be defining in waiving Bapistie’s position on the matte; a move that resolves into action. The ‘private empirical language’ in this case is the great language o the question. Such questions are finite in themselves, and yet unlocateble. They exist in the problematic understandings between people, an understanding which is itself merely an expression (or an alternative take) upon the deep problem of how one arbitraites between meaning and affects, which endless cris cut each other, pulling (if resolve) one another is radically different direction. In a single person such a situation might be essentially irresovable (that is almost that point of being a single thing, a point I return to below in the next essay). However, the same is not the case when that same feeling exists beteen a purality of people (or a single person behaving as a plurality). Here the question itself need never be simply resolved. He the very unstablity, and irreiconiclablity not jus tof any answer, but the ingreidtents of te question itself (which are not so very simply related to each other), matter in a sense notin the least. The point lies in the movement,in the doubt, in the possibility of many answers to the single problem – many differing resolutions.
And yet, as so often one needs not to tumble into ontology too quickly here. Ontology might redily claim that his feeling was the realtiy itself. One might then (as deleze, with utter genius reworks out), then unwind an entire rationalisttye philosophy, based upon this ontology. And yet, that would not be what the Brightside fanatic would ant to do. For them the reality, what Deleuze might want as his Noumena, the thing in itself, needs to allow in a plain external to phenomena (as wonderful las such a darkside loyalism is), but in the phenomeon itself. it I in the affects, and in the perception that the change is effected ( later Deleuze, with plies genius upon genius by realizing this fact albeit lat in his work). The past of collective questions, are therefore confined in the audience for the question. they are the question these people are asking. The question wihin their assembly posses between itself. The question has no right to escape this community (and pose itself as something apart).
It is then this situation, this local problematic construct which language then revolves, not by words (as by defintion one is beyond a place words have meaning, have access), but rather in the waive of a fingure (which then resolves itself into words, and into feelings). Prolbelmatic sitaution, and the odd, silent language in which they orbit become thereby revolved within a act which can only take place in a mime without language . A Child learns then first to copy gestures (which somehow resolve the complex interwoven worlds in finds itself within) before there mimes, and these situation can be resolved into words. A mime, to look, and know a resolution is possible is perhaps the necessary condition for language.
Bapiste’s language is therefore the problematizing of the rationalist hegemony (without disrupting it). It is based upon the odd idea that language might be fully rational (it might therefore be subject to closed schema, or even open schema which are caught within a single maze of being), and yet at the same time it is never quite all it is. Is opened up by the every empirical nature of the perception, which silently support it, and articulated into saying things which have no simple correlation in any rationally constructed language itself. These order then are taken up and warped, and within remaing rehoused (and then effected anew), as different ways to say the same thing, and the same way to say radically different things are endlessly explored. Iit is then this reworking that allows that strange hidden intimacy, so unthinkablw in the raionalist approaches to be articulates, which is surely thr very stuff of language itself. Thast is the abilty to conjure up in the mind og another a series of images, or feeling they have never felt. A common accord. An abilty to enter into another mind. The point of tempiricism here, is that one must not think that language is alone in exploring this kingdom. Or somehow unique. On the contrary it is liely enough (and Bapiste certainly would hold this) that langage itself is only possible as that kingsdom did exist. It is rather the case that it is this kingdom sing itself into the gaps of language, into the extra bits which defy meaning. And this song, as it is then reflected back into language – becomes problematic, and the words themselves are endlessly recreating new and ever different melodies within the whole – pulling it at times utterly out of kilter with itself (although always in way that restores a different melody, or even stranger claims that the old melody was its own all along).Language is at once creative, and yet created (and yet the two are not quite given n the same breadth- or the same aact or even n the same way. Bapiste is truly then always a smuggler of contraband. Smuggling meaning into grunt, and yet exploiting grunts into a web of meanings, and doing so in the name of an inner world which everyone shares, but he alone (in his knowledge of maps and time)is a true citizn of.
However there remains of exactly why Bladois has such power over Baspite. Of what exactly in the game which blandios himself clams wis without language which gives the Slefish self thepower to enfold or at least to demand to enfold language within itself. or to put the question another way why given the disjnuction Bapiste shws exists within passion and lanaguge and their expression, do we fail to exploit their difference? Why are we so commited to the claim tht, inspire of all appearances the two are one and the same. A point for the next essay.