The nature of expression

• Format: [drawing & description]+

• Descriptive set theory, complexity, etc..

[ AN EXPRESSION ]

Amidst the multitudes of understandings of the world, the possible intentions and interpretations of any act of language, or object conceived of for that matter, there is something very special to that, although forever indefinable, receiving aspect of an act of expression which renders it known, understood, or maybe just seen, by one individual, and even more so if by more. It is a positive informational polarity, a definitiveness. Although one may wonder whether a particular conception is justified, correct, etc. - what would almost be forgotten is the paramount quality of it being conceived of in definite form in the first place.
In political speech, one is sometimes told not only to listen to what is said, but rather what is not. This is what I'm talking of. A speech act is so incredibly definite, that (human intentions etc aside) it carries not only its informational content, but the very fact that it was chosen out of a vast set of alternative possibilities. This is its polarity.
The reason I speak of it as having a polarity, it the very fact that -- although mathematically speaking one might be inclined to think that the same could be said by saying "not" and its inverse, that is, all things not said -- there is no way in which we would ever be able to conprehend such an inverse. In fact, there is no indication at all as of yet that we would even be able to grasp the nature of such an inverse, and all attempts to would seem to lead to paradoxes of a known kind. For if we would have an understanding of the nature of such an inverse, then the questions begs itself what the inverse of this understanding would be, etc... leading to our current unfulfilling mathematical understanding of (in)definability, infinite regression, etc.
In short, I owe it to my understanding of (the current state of affairs in) logic that I assign a special value to the character of expression.
As I understand it, this state of affairs exemplifies that the primary concern in philosophy is not with truth, but with understanding, being, or being related to, exactly this nature of expression: having a positive polarity amidst all unknown/unconceived-ofs.

[ SOCIAL LIFE IS IMMANENT ]

...

[ POLITICS ]

Foucault talks of the politics of discourse, and I would generalize this. Social life is immanent, and deals with expression, at the heart of which is politics in the way Foucault has spoken of.

[ AESTHETICS -- ETHICS ]

Having a certain aesthetical or ethical value, is a property of an expression, or maybe rather an attiture towards an expression. The distinguishing feature between the two is conceptually smaller than what is something thought: it is just its shared state in society. If idiosyncratic, it is aesthetical, and if commonly held, ethical. If one devalues the "aesthetical" as a stage in life, then this is because one naturally walks the path of learning to assimilate to society, thereby replacing of transforming one's idiosyncratic aesthetical apprehensions for/into commonly held (hence ethical) apprehensions.
...
(dimensions in reasons for commonality: biology, rationality, culture, power, etc.)

[ THE HOLD OF NATURE ]

There seems to be such a thing as a grounded, unchanging, understanding of the world, which is nature. It is what people debate about when they question whether our understanding of mathematics, most notably, or other things, are "universal". This universality, which in terms of the previous, may be nothing more than a stubborn play of power in the immanent political field of expression, is what I'm referring to. For the moment being, it matters not to resolve the (in)definite character of such universal quests, or the matter of our preoccupation with the "universal" -- I merely want to bind my concept of "nature" to this concept of a discourse of expression of which we cannot detach ourselves, no matter what we do. That which lies outside of social constructability. (Who knows, maybe there is no such thing!)

[ LOVE ]

Love is the will to reconcile empathy (by whose path one is led to the social/common life-world) with one's origin -- aesthetics. Hope also has something to do with this, either believing in the possibility of love, or accepting some intermediate form, or something else.

..?