Language is World - A Shinto Theory of Meaning
Language as a Mirror Held Up to Reality
“That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
This poetic quote by Ludwig Wittgenstein has become famous even outside of philosophical circles. Yet, once we dive into the phrase we see that it is anything but poetic.
Wittgenstein argues that rather than being about the world, language seems to simply ‘work’. Any attempt to explain how language was connected to the world would ultimately fail due to the limits of language.
Japanese philosopher, Izutsu Toshihiko 井筒俊彦 (1914–1993), in his book Language and Magic (translated Gengo to jujutsu 言語と呪術 in Japanese), described this new way of thinking like this:
Language was once seen as being causally related to the world, while, post-science, language is seen as being only correlated.
But is it possible to return to a pre-scientific sense of language? One in which language was still casually connected to the world? I think we can and I believe native Japanese philosophy can help us do it.
In this article, I want to explore the idea that rather than passing over the connection between language and reality in silence, we unify language and reality thus doing away with the problem of disconnected language.
This idea largely comes from the concept kotodama in Shinto and Japanese philosophy: a pre-scientific theory about language.
From Referencing to Reflecting
The concept of kotodama (言霊), or literally the spirit (tama 霊) of words (koto 言), is a central concept in classic Japanese philosophy on how language is related to the world.
The concept contains the idea that language is not seen as referring to reality, but that language is reflecting reality. Kūkai 空海 (774–835) compares language to a perfect mirror, reflecting true reality without any distortion. The idea is then that language, by its very nature, is able to reveal reality just as a mirror refects the world.
Ueda Shizuteru 上田閑照 (1926–2019) argues that even under an internal view of meaning, such as Wittgenstein’s use theory of meaning,
“the difference within language between words and things (the word “things”) is reflecting, as language, precisely the extra-linguistic difference between words on the one hand and things that are not words on the other.”
Kotodama claims that such perfect reflection is possible due to several aspects of language.
First, kotodama takes as the most basic component of language sound and not words or phonemes.
Sound, as produced by a human, is seen as literally the way that the mind is connected to the world. An individual, in making an utterance of language, produces physical sounds waves external to the individual. These waves are in turn perceived by someone else. The process is something like the below
Idea (Person A) -> Physical Movement -> Sound Production -> Sound Movement -> Phyiscal Movement -> Idea (Person B)
Kotodama is described as the ability of such activity to carry meaning and not simply being a collection of air compressions. This is to say that when I hear the sound “a-p-p-l-e,” the idea of an apple comes to my mind (rather than nothing happening).
Kūkai takes up this view of language as sounds and goes one step further. He argues that language is fundamentally a set of differentiations. From the basic exhaling of sound (taken to be the sound ‘A’, or the first letter in Sanskrit) all other sounds are made (think of the International Phonetic Alphabet). These various sounds are arranged in patterns forming words, and words into sentences.
Kūkai says that this structure reflects the structure of reality as reality is also one unified ultimate is expressed by a myriad of basic components that are combined to make an infinite number of possible combinations. At the everyday level, this is perceived physically as the combination of basic elements which makes up material reality.
Thus, the expression of language mirrors the expression of material reality. This means that when one properly considers language (language, of course, can be misunderstood), one is able to come to know the true nature of reality as both share the same nature. In other words, if you know language, you know reality.
Under this view, words (collections of sounds), then, do not pick out an object in the world to which they are supposed to refer. Instead, words co-arise with the concept of the thing which they mean.
To take the four-legged animal with a certain look to be a cat (i.e. everything that we would traditionally denote by ‘cat’) is the act of linguistically expressing it. In other words, there are not two things that are combined (e.g. signified and signifier as in Saussure), but only one thing is expressed in two different ways.
An object such as a cat has two possible forms of expression; material in the form of physical extension and linguistically in the form of meaningful vocal (kotodama) extension.
Kūkai takes it one step further and argues that this relationship does not hold only at the common superficial level, but for ultimate reality as well. Language does not only reflect reality as we experience it, but reflects the true nature of ultimate reality; from one comes the many.
This fact allows Kūkai to claim that language not only reveals the truth about reality, but also that language is capable of leading one to the enlightenment Buddhism seeks. In no way does language, properly understood, mislead one about what reality is like (on any level) or lead one to attachment.
The second feature of language that allows it to mirror reality is that the meaning of words is not seen as special cases of meaning or signifying.
That is, everything is taken to have meaning and linguistic meaning is simply a subset of that meaning. What exactly that meaning is depends on how it is seen. But regardless of what it is seen as, it has meaning.
Linguistic meaning is meaning conveyed via physical sounds waves from one person to another as opposed to via light waves (i.e. sight) or other empirical sensations.
For example, consider a tree. When one talks about seeing the thing in front of one as a tree this is due to sight. One literally sees the thing as a tree. If one were to get precise, one only sees a collection of colors. However, this collection is taken to be a tree; that is, the experience is taken to be meaningful.
Similarly, hearing the sentence ‘there is a tree’ is another way to perceive an object as a tree. The only difference is one is via light waves and one is via sounds waves.
Ōmori Shōzō 大森荘蔵 claims that this is due to all the senses having a ‘spirit’ (tama). Sight conveys meaning via medama (spirit of eyes 目霊) while words convey meaning via kotodama (spirit of words 言霊). This highlights the connectedness of different kinds of meaning, as the only difference is the mechanism.
One need not rely on Buddhist metaphysics in order to make sense of kotodama. What is essential is the relationship that language has to reality. Regardless of the nature of reality, language can be seen as reflecting it via reflecting the differentiation that is present in reality. Language is able at accounting for the divisions of reality where ever they might be.
Revisiting Language and its Relation to Metaphysics
With kotodama, One is capable of doing metaphysics under a use theory of meaning via language as they stand in a macro-micro relationship.
While language does not “point” to the way the world is, it does reflect it. The distinctions that are present in language can be taken to be distinctions that are present in reality. In other words, language is capable of accounting for and expressing the ‘joints’ of reality.
Further, there is a practical basis for this as well which Ōmori points out.
If language did not in some way reflect the true nature of reality, it would not be as central to us as it is. In other words, language would not “work” if it did not reflect reality. If one could live without language it is quite possible that one would do so as language is not the most convenient method for handling meaning. Simply seeing or touching might be sufficient.
However, Ōmori, along with Ueda, argue that language is perfect for human life as language itself is alive. Language is capable of reflecting reality of human existence, as it is capable of keeping up with all that life throws at us.
This is because language is a unique blend of rigidity and flexability. With language, we are able to lay down unchanging laws (e.g. grammar) while developing new ways of talking about the world that we live in (e.g. words/phrases).
Even if there is something that language does not appear to account for, that is no hindrance to languages ability to then go on and account for it.
Take for example cars. Cars and the myriad of technology which have been built around them are far from naturally occurring objects. Before the 1920’s (when the word is said to have entered the English language) there was no such word as ‘parking lot’. Yet language was able to mark this new distinction in the world and countless others.
If language were not capable of adding new terms and getting rid of old ones, it would not be able to fulfill the role that it does.
It would then appear that not only is language a capable mechanism for metaphysical inquiry, it is an ideal one; one capable of drawing distinction no matter where and when they exist.
Conclusion
For me language has always been an ethereal thing. Language is so important to human life. Yet when used correctly, language seems to fade away from notice leaving only meaning behind.
Mirrors are then a perfect metaphore for language as they do the same thing. When working correctly you forget that you are looking at a mirror and instead focus on what you see in the mirror. However, when it is broken or dirty it is hard to think about anything beyond that fact that there is something wrong with a mirror.
This feature is percisly why mirrors are sacred objects in Shino. Mirrors are perfect symbols for something that is and is not at the same time. This display of the dual nature of reality made it central to Shinto teachings.
Thus, it is no surprise that when Japanese philosophers have saught to give an account of language that they would turn to mirrors to do so.
References
Gordon P. Baker and P M S. Hacker, Language, Sense and Nonsense: a Critical Investigation Into Modern Theories of Language (Oxford, England: B. Blackwell, 1984).
Ueda Shizuteru, “Language in a Twofold World,” in Japanese Philosophy: A Sourcebook, ed. James Heisig, Thomas Kasulis, and John Maraldo (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2011).