Linguistic Limitations and Experiential Ecstasy

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Limits of language and the return to experience and/or metaphysics

        Many contemporary theologians account for Wittgenstein’s language games to justify their belief in God. I too was one of these individuals as of last December. I have since then shifted my beliefs to something more “real”. There is a linguistic element I still hold to. The idea is that truth is socially validated by the game. Thus the cultural setting is verified by its expression. To which Rorty noted is relativistic in its own right. Nevertheless, it is justified in its own trial. Something is real to the culture that inhabits it. Then Shabbat and Christ are mutually inclusive in the objectively even if both sides disagree. This does not provide a singular framework or narrative nor does it provide ontological realism. This does not mean that linguistics or even language games are useless, it simply demonstrates the inadequacy of picturing the real personified as there is a neglect for a subjective dream. Its understandable that Jewish thinkers take to Wittgenstein maybe his Jewish heritage but also the focus on practice enables these scholars to apply an alternative scientifically monitored divine approach that salvages the infinite while accepting modern polemics. Given, the centrality of Maimonidean thought in Jewish philosophical history it is by no means shocking to use it as a springboard to talk less about God and more about law. Then again, Maimonides’ move from Aristotelean attack mirrors the modern Kantian attack. What is the solution to this issue. The first is to remove Kant. Kant is the most important philosophical figure of the past few centuries and looms large in the Jewish world as well. 

Without delving excessively into Kantian theology it is important to note that Kant’s critique of metaphysics spawned a generation of two schools opposed to the metaphysical reality. Continental philosophy though discussed the metaphysical ontology moved away from traditional metaphysics and the analytical model eschewed the scholarship entirely. Heidegger and his successors like Derrida wished to deconstruct western metaphysics. Accordingly, immediate access to presence was prioritised over absence in the deconstructive stage. The mitigation of metaphysics followed in existentialism to structuralism to post-structuralism. Post structuralism finally caught up with the analytical philosophers albeit in the opposite direction. While, Quine and Kripke were attempting to revive metaphysics, Foucault and Derrida were ridding it. 

Following the linguistic turn Heidegger and then the structuralists focused heavily on linguistics. Meaning of being emerged transferred to language as the medium to express. Structuralism equated the signifier and the signified. There are two levels of language the everyday use (parole) and the lingo structure (langue). The linguistic shift persisted in Derrida’s post-structuralism. Underestimating the linguistic association gave rise to a postmodern hermeneutic. This has given kabbalah the break it needs in avoiding the traditional metaphysics and promoting a linguistic surge. 

Postmodern ideology has provided three responses the fundamentalists, the neo-kabbalists and the non-foundationalists. We will ignore the first group for now as they are unresponsive in a progressive way for now. Their defence is avoiding the current trend in favour of radical traditionalism. We will return to this model to provide an accommodating approach to the present age. The neo-kabbalists consist of Ross and Shagar amongst other academics such as Magid, Wolfson and Drob. The non-foundationalists include the likes of Leibowitz to Ochs. 

The non-foundationalists as the linguists will be the first to be occupy our research. The negation of metaphysics led these scholars to negate theology. Following Wittgenstein’s language games Leibowitz argued for practice superiority. Leibowitz sufficiently believed in God but derided religious facts. He was more inclined to a radical maimonidean position than agnosticism. His transcendent deity did well to maintain an orthodox approach. The same goes for Goldman. Goldman went further than Leibowitz. In associating a pragmatic religious experience. Ochs and Gibbs provide an alternative route through textual reasoning. In their model, language is imperative to understanding religiosity. They use the postmodern deconstruction to interpret a vague text. Ochs supplies a pragmatic response to Jewishly express themselves. Gibbs offers a textualisation that is non-dogmatic, that is alive and evolving. The use of the talmudic text to justify religiosity by transitioning to the philosophical realm. The derash persona fulfils the exegetical multiplicity and textual performance necessary for a postmodern ideologue. This culture-linguistic model is limited by these latter scholars. There is a backbone to Judaism. Similarly, the former commandment based thinkers see the halakha and faith in God as the backdrop of Judaism. There is bedrock of of origin. Jewish philosophy must emanate from the source itself and in both areas it does. Whether there is a Cartesian foundationalism is irrelevant to the fact that these thinkers uphold Judaism as the focal aspect internally not from some external mantra. 

The Neo-kabbalists who happen to be non-foundationalists as well find their calling in the absence of God. Postmodern rhetoric faithfully encoded the divine hiddenness. They take it further than the previous transcendent deities. This is not radical rationalism but pure panentheism. Beginning with Ross who attacks the Wittgensteinian linguistic approach due to its lack of fervour amongst believers in general. We will return to this critique afterwards. Ross approaches theology with a mystic outlook. The difference as Ross explains is it, while others attempted to discuss the metaphysic of God, to the Kabbalist it is more about how do we ascribe the finite that is not God. The panentheistic outlook of Kook as enamoured with the paradoxical nature of divine intrusion. There is a holism that engulfs the fragmentation. Shagar took this route in alluding to the absence of God. His divine ontology utilised postmodern thinkers to embroil his thought. For example he nurtured Lacan’s idea of the real and aligned Derrida’s deconstruction with the kabbalistic breaking of the vessels. His faith in God is letter-less, in a sense intuitive. These two approaches demonstrate a reliance on esoteric thinking to combat postmodern rhetoric. In the same way Maimonides responded to Aristotelean philosophy so too Ross and especially Shagar follow suite even citing these postmodern scholars to further their agenda. 

This does not come without backlash. There is the fundamentalist critiques of altering theology but there are sufficient criticism of each of these thinkers and we will attempt to cultivate a theology that is rational yet contemporarily staunch. Firstly, the language game has been criticised by Ross herself acknowledging the lack of Jewish pull. According to Ross, Leibowitz and Goldman both suffer from praxis-basis that precludes theology. In Sagi’s analysis it is these thinkers who absolve theology. Though they do not entirely deride metaphysical claims, they redirect to commandments as the genus of religious activity. For Ross and Shagar, their issues are more of their postmodern acceptance. The derision with tradition is encamped by fundamentalism. Much of Shagar criticisms come from the orthodox camp. Yet, the best affirmation of an alternative comes from Jotkowitz’s analysis of Sacks’ protest to Shagar’s silence. Lebens also notes Sack’s preoccupation with postmodern ideology even if he did not quote the scholars themselves. He also notes a fascinating point building on Kaye’s assumption that Sacks hid postmodern tenants, in that Sacks consistently oscillated between both poles. In a sense somewhat maimonidean that he offered to concede to certain contemporary ideas as long as they did not conflict with Judaism. Still, Sacks was not a postmodernist but was willing to accept certain poststructural criteria in culturally linguistic phenomenon but is unwilling to concede objective facts. I formulated my own critique in the margins of Shagar’s newly English translated book. Many of my arguments follow Sack’s emphasis on rationality and pragmatism. 

Here we will dispense with the language games argument that has garnered so much interest in Jewish circles. Ross critiqued the theory for its lack of transcendence but was willing to accept it to an extent. Even turning mysticism into a linguistic model. Yet, it is relevant to note that the linguistic aspect need not be rejected. Fisher takes this challenge similar to Ross and fosters a doxastic approach. Though it is Fisher who provides the analysis of thinkers who discuss God. Much of modern to postmodern thinkers who pushed God to the deistic corner. From Kaplan to Heschel to Leibowitz to Shagar. Rosenzweig in an unorthodox play argues for an intuitive account of religious fermentation. Rosenzweig is willing to place God in the realm of consciousness. Berkovits follows suit with a teleological insistence on divine elevation. In Wyscholgrod’s mark there is a need to re-mythologise divine lingo. The ability to perceive God with the tools provided via traditional inventory is corrected by the atheistic tone in modern religiosity. The Wittgensteinian role is to mitigate divine indoctrination for routine practice. This tribal ritualistic expression is highlighted without concerning a commanding deity. Though the current trend marks in Berkovits’ animosity a continuation of medieval alienation. To which Fromm sought the end of God. The leap is addressing the texts as a step beyond the frame. It is unifying the evolving theological jargon. It is in a sense following Fromm in his updated version of divine coordination. Even the theological marginalisation has what to provide to the overall canon. 

The irony of this entire project is the furtherance of theology but an overemphasis will hinder practice. Jews searching for celestial marks are demurring the potential Jewish future. The pragmatic positivity emerging from a divine reality is exponentially safer than a godless world. The psychosis of divinity has proper utility to survive. Yet, it’s through textual mediation and precise conduct that conjures a divine frame. Language is semantic at best. The deeper semiotic link signalling a more precious deity is empowering. Through it all as Gillman points out one can have their cake and eat it too. Though it may sound hypocritical at best, it announces a divine teleology that administers an ethical code to humanity. 

Language is inquired over experience. There is a preoccupation with the cultural-linguistic turn. This in hindsight formally anoints each culture with subjective supremacy. There is a truth for each to do as they wish. The silence of postmodern rhetoric wishes to remain absent from any further inquiry. In order to not impinge on anyone else. Language itself is empowered to explain the genus of a culture. The culture is justified by its textual certainty. The forefront of linguistic affiliation has its pros but it distracts from the existential encounter. Texts must act as the bedrock and not the haven mitigating spiritual connection. Whether rationally or mystically. The symbolic gem is overturning the linguistic limitation with an experiential alternative. Experiential fortification has been dismantled by ill-mannered naivety. The neurosis that seeks to supply a false narrative to the conscious mind. The spiritual sensation that was none other than a psychotic episode is wavering. The text is to provide a direction but it is simply the flatline. It is the semantic analysis that cannot interpret beyond. The experience hinges on a personal provocation in the narrational edifice. Language is expression insofar as it is instructional, it cannot lead to the feeling. The feeling is construct with a passionate exertion to the garner interest in the overriding focus of semantic harping. 

Two examples will suffice. Firstly, I was in Croatia two weeks ago. There is no Jewish community, no Shabbos life. Shabbos felt like any other day. Even when making it myself, it did not feel different. It felt like a sacrilegious wasteland. Returning to Israel the following week, I was enamoured with the communal involvement to the spiritual day. It is evidently a potential psychosis but that need not derail the experiential factor. The neurosis tied to the spirit is predominately a habituated account of ritualistic routine powering the subconscious mentality. The other example was a wedding last week. Standing there listening to moving hebrew music as background for the beautiful emotive moment of a husband and wife forming. The blessings though potentially nominalistic, felt real and powerful. The words themselves constituted a certain paradigm that was expropriated by the couple. He gave her a ring signifying the marriage. The experience is truly symbolic in the large signatory masterwork of religious expression. Linguistics convey the what but not it itself. It talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. It is the personal engagement with language to construct that reality and beyond.