Philosophy of the Keexzus, No. 42: The Structure of Language

Philosophy of the Keexzus, No. 42: The Structure of Language

[January 25, 2015]

The structure of language on one level is very visible, material, tangible. It is there on the page to be structured into things resembling life. Lessons and curriculums are structured to conform and to implement and inculcate a particular form to the fashion one should structure material language. The problem with material language is its focus, intent, and reason for existence is not in complete congruence with the greater purpose of lifting human consciousness, or even (and less likely) transcending something much greater and powerful. One subject can be written about clearly. One language bridge can transport the reader from subject to subject, territory to territory, but how rarely can it transport it world to world—not in a science fiction type of way, but something else entirely. The nature of material language is efficiency. It is the currency of academia and most schooling. It is the dead language that kills most students’ interest in language, writing, books. It is the exam asking an all of the above question. It is the exam saying there are limits and few options. It is the stupidity of efficiency. It is the great failure of cultural consciousness saying, “We just need a base, mass way to communicate. Creativity must die.” It is the second portion that is implied.

What I am suggesting is something impossible to implement as of yet. What I am suggesting isn’t classically efficient, practical, and perhaps not even readily teachable. It is not to teach for an exam, or a school, or government, or country. It is not even to learn anything practical in the classical sense. It is something entirely alien.

What should be taught is this: purpose, drive, and passion.

These things are more powerful than a simple textbook or dry power point presentation or handout. In fact, it requires nothing (almost nothing). This only requires one to ask, ‘Why?’ ‘Why are you here?’ and not accept the cheap, lazy answers. It requires to push the boundaries of comfort and fear and ask, ‘Are you content with mediocrity?’ And if so, ‘Why?’ And if not, ‘Why?’

From here, new roads will be forged.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s