To be continued..
– Talking about a kind of language where it is concerned with tendencies inherent to the subject of the language which leads toward the communication of the content of the mind. Rather than a specialized language, a language that communicates the content of its subject. Therefore it is possible to postulate a language of arts, technology, sculpture, and so on.
– Then, to sum up, all communications of the contents of the mind is language. But is the language solely dependent to the contents of the mind? Where the contents are defined only mentally, and the mental activities are expounded on the level of their communicability. So, how can we get over with this seemingly paradoxical binding?
– In basically all aspects of human mental expression, language in one sense or another is inherent. All the communication, then, is built upon the idea of mental expression which ultimately postulates a priory language to be preceded. But how do we distinguish these two territories of language formation? In other words, is there any kind of existence independent from language and is there any mental expression that is not founded on a priory language?
– If language as such is a direct expression of a mental entity, “that is to say: the German language, for example, is by no means the expression of everything that we could-theoretically-express through it, but it is the direct expression of that which communicates itself in it. This “itself” is a mental entity.” Therefore, mental entity being communicated in language should be distinguished the language resulting in or within it.
– Mental essence of a thing is its mental entity. In other words, language is a way to communicate for things by their mental essences.
– Upon which asks and marks a paradoxical point Herr Benjamin: how do we distinguish between mental entity and its linguistic entity latter of which is existed in language?
– “It is fundamental that this mental being communicates itself in language and not through language.” (p. 63) Since mental being communicates itself through language, it is therefore not identical to the linguistic entity which speaks in language.
– To sum up, communication is realized by way of a linguistic process in which mental entities are included in the linguistic beings of things they’re representing insofar as there is a capability of being communicated.
– “The language of this lamp, for example, communicates not the lamp (for the mental being of the lamp, insofar as it is communicatable, is by no means the lamp itself) but the language-lamp, the lamp in communication, the lamp in expression.” (p. 63) The linguistic being of all things is their language.
– All language communicates itself in itself. Medium of communication is language which is the capacity of communicatibility of itself in itself. Or: the capacity of communication is language itself.
– “Mediation: which is the immediacy of all mental communication, is the fundamental problem of linguistic theory, and if one chooses to call this immediacy magic, then the primary problem of language is its magic.” P. 64
– Since the linguistic being of a man is his language and since man speaks in words, therefore, his linguistic being is to name other things…
– He names them in order to communicate to himself.
Locus Solus 