Milli mála - 01.01.2012, Page 211

211
PÉTUR KNÚTSSON
IV. Pneumatology and the winds of uncertainty
But any synthesis of these two points of view will not be some mean
trajectory between two vectors, for the non-ratiocinatory (rather
than non-rational) figure of ‘language speaking in man’ can hardly
be measured against a metaphor of hard-wired neuro-circuitry. The
former is not falsifiable, in the Popperian sense, while the latter is
a scientific metaphor that we routinely – for the sake of our peace
of mind – forget will eventually become obsolete. Our synthesis
must be enabled by some other means.
As a first step, we might argue for some sort of scientific scepti-
cism, asking linguists to suspend judgement, to recognise the
metaphorical and temporary nature of their paradigms, to avoid
extrapolating authoritatively from them over uncharted territory,
and above all to accept the likelihood of the existence of such terri-
tory. Atli Harðarson (1996) resolutely defends scepticism, bravely
demonstrating the failure of all attempts to circumvent it. Although
some of his arguments give me pause, I cannot but accept his main
premise – within the limits of a natural scepticism – that scepti-
cism cannot be demolished by rational means. But herein lies the
rub. Atli Harðarson is arguing, as are most of those he discusses in
his essay, within the framework of what Heidegger (as we saw ear-
lier) calls ratiocination, the narrowly provincial European mode of
thought which has become, to all intents and purposes, global. For
Heidegger this type of thinking is marked by language decay,
while true thinking takes place in the realm of poetry. To be sure,
Atli Harðarson touches in his essay on attempts to implicate lan-
guage in a disavowal of scepticism: “Some of Wittgenstein’s follow-
ers seem to look on his theory that language owes its existence to
human communication as a refutation of the sceptic’s doubt as to
the existence of other people” (Atli Harðarson: 22, my translation).
Although I admire and enjoy the logic of Atli Harðarson’s discus-
sion, I shall follow Heidegger half-way out of the ratiocinatory
mode – halfway because I fear I have already disregarded Heiddeger’s
warning against “reduc[ing] poetry to the servant’s role as docu-
mentary proof for our thinking,” and thus “for [getting] the whole-
point: to undergo an experience with language” (Heidegger 1982:
Milli_mála_4A_tbl_lagf_13.03.2013.indd 211 6/24/13 1:43 PM