marți, 28 iunie 2011

Speaking about Events

Only when someone is witness to a singular event, the truth about it pertains to him.

Since the events follow one after another, each of them requires a verbal description, since otherwise they would be confounded. Such descriptions belong rather to the events themselves than to their observer and from this reason there is the practice of conceding to them the clearest clarity as objective facts. The economy of language for speaking about events is  in total agreement with the suddenness proper to any event. 


Someone who keeps testimony about them might survive as a definite person only by his retreat in some firm things. 

If the events are sufficiently far to not involve the observer, they hardly can impose their rules of language and nobody can easily use his own words about them in his unaffected loneliness. Therefore, there cannot easily be used words for grounding his position as an observer, too. By hearing about some distant events, he can describe them just from a custom of gathering words and discourses about things almost unknown. Otherwise, he cannot be an observer anymore, but only an interpreter of others' descriptions.


The events overcome the person involved and drag him out in their overcoming and the same thing is done by others' descriptions. The only escape for a distant observer in order to not loose his identity is offered by the things found in his closeness. They enable anyone to compose strings of words and discourses with the feeling of being of his disposal.


Such closed things often contribute to a concealed analogical discourse about unobserved events; they are wrongly assimilated to known events. Nonetheless, some closed things seem to be the values attributed to the events. We can qualify a distant event as good or bad, but our discourse does not describe it in a coherent matter. It just proves to be a way of showing that we are not entirely ignorant about what happens far away from us.