The tap is dried out”, surely one day we all had gone through. Here the language with which we interpret water, is abundant however it signifies something known as scarcity. That is a paradox.
However, the nature of our language is fecund, draught like. This makes us see that language has both number (abundant /scarce), and nature.
It is the nature of language that is affected by the scarcity of water which is a scarcity of thought.
Is there a language specific to water? Something that Spinoza would have thought about, God as substance attributing language. Is water Substance, God, Language, or all three?
All agree water is substance. Some think water is language before substance. Some feel water is God.
Let us evoke that paradox as one day when we got affected by this- language as water. When there is less water, it reduces our signifieds. This is surely an emergence of draughts, as symbols multiply and words are deduced from symbols instead of their signifieds, as they are lesser in number than the symbols, somewhat like translation.
In the exact opposite position, It is within the language that water is prohibited essence or nature (Though Spinoza takes nature and essence as different somewhere they meet). Such laws are outside of water and are laws of language. Outside it the water there is, has a scarce being, like the “river got parched”.
From where does these symbols emerge? Water is a symbol. From water to scarcity of water, we see that the symbols proliferate with barely any being, leading only to less and less water.
As the symbols increase water becomes scarce, is a mythopoesis that I am attempting here.
2.
How then do we survive? We build by inferring newer and newer symbols. Drinking water fountains/stations (DWF/DWS) are such symbols inferred by an enlightened man. “ I need a Bottle filling station manufacturer.” is a full language, not scarce.
Which makes us think we are constructive towards a resourceful language and usage of water, like “there is enough water and more.”
There is the deep symmetry of water with language. We say there is water, enough for all. Which is equal in itself to the water we have.
So clauses in language which gets attributed for an equalizing tendency in the clause, such as, “if distributed equally, there is water for all” is not really equalizing at all.
Here, the language is non-erotic, tremendously appropriating language of water. Which means there is something painful in desiring that equality.
If let gone, and fulfilled then there is water because of this very symmetry between water and language.
Any asymmetry is non equitable. Such as water and humans.
At that instant one foregoes water from language and, see water. The redundant experience where one cannot say a word. Is exasperating if only language takes place, blue, serene, cosmic.
Do we equalize asymmetries like paradox?
Doesn’t that change the whole graph of its relation to language?
Let us then, at all level know the paradox, language as water, causing asymmetries everywhere.
From which symbols occur. And a DWS is a symbol occupied and translated after being deduced. Not to alleviate the asymmetry but to let go of it in haste.