As I mentioned in “The Originary Hypothesis in Itself,” a participant in the recent GA conference (Dominic Mitchell) referred to the “non-fungibility” of language. He used this term in the context of language’s resistance to “scientific” reductionism, and it provides insight into both language and the originary hypothesis. I suggested that to be “converted” to the originary hypothesis—to take is as the point of departure of your inquiries—would require a sense of the “miraculousness” of language, or a constant wonder at its very possibility, even as that possibility is continuously affirmed in its reality. The “creationism,” or “ex nihilo” character of language which the originary hypothesis insists upon, is a scandal and stumbling block to the philosophically and evolutionary psychologically inclined. We can reduce the issuance of the sign on the originary scene to a minimal conversion of a gesture of appropriation to a gesture of deferral—we can readily imagine grasping for something and in the midst of it, slowing down, even slightly, perhaps opening up one’s hand in an only partially articulated disavowal. In a sense, that’s the easy part, because we just have to imagine someone suddenly confronted with previously unseen opposition. The tough part is the second person now imitating this new gesture, after having gone all in on the rush to appropriate the central object—and then a third, and a fourth, until the tide turns and enough on the scene stand ready to restrain whoever still approaches the object. At least one participant is playing against type here in imitating this new gesture, and that participant must be taking in the scene in a way we could never reduce to anything external to the scene itself—no animal “instinct” or “predilections” could account for the how the entire scene resonates in this single participant—the entirety of the event has overridden all that and created a new, immanent causality that we language using humans cannot so much explain as enact. Hence the scene’s, and language’s, non-fungibility.
The Same Sample
The Same Sample
The Same Sample
As I mentioned in “The Originary Hypothesis in Itself,” a participant in the recent GA conference (Dominic Mitchell) referred to the “non-fungibility” of language. He used this term in the context of language’s resistance to “scientific” reductionism, and it provides insight into both language and the originary hypothesis. I suggested that to be “converted” to the originary hypothesis—to take is as the point of departure of your inquiries—would require a sense of the “miraculousness” of language, or a constant wonder at its very possibility, even as that possibility is continuously affirmed in its reality. The “creationism,” or “ex nihilo” character of language which the originary hypothesis insists upon, is a scandal and stumbling block to the philosophically and evolutionary psychologically inclined. We can reduce the issuance of the sign on the originary scene to a minimal conversion of a gesture of appropriation to a gesture of deferral—we can readily imagine grasping for something and in the midst of it, slowing down, even slightly, perhaps opening up one’s hand in an only partially articulated disavowal. In a sense, that’s the easy part, because we just have to imagine someone suddenly confronted with previously unseen opposition. The tough part is the second person now imitating this new gesture, after having gone all in on the rush to appropriate the central object—and then a third, and a fourth, until the tide turns and enough on the scene stand ready to restrain whoever still approaches the object. At least one participant is playing against type here in imitating this new gesture, and that participant must be taking in the scene in a way we could never reduce to anything external to the scene itself—no animal “instinct” or “predilections” could account for the how the entire scene resonates in this single participant—the entirety of the event has overridden all that and created a new, immanent causality that we language using humans cannot so much explain as enact. Hence the scene’s, and language’s, non-fungibility.