Language and all its applications are based on the same logic of consensus and reference as money.
-value granted
-self-reinforcement
-progressive consolidation through the functionality of the financial / language tool
– reference agencies : banks / grammar – spelling
It is however easier to understand the absence of intrinsic reality of money than that of language, yet just as unreal.
Probably because language is an earlier learning process than that of fiduciary value.
Also because language is the tool of tools: present in our structures between ourselves and the other tools that we apprehend.
In both cases, the transactional element justifies the need for consensus.
(The consensus is necessary prior to the establishment of a functioning system)
To the financial transaction is symmetrically positioned the exchange of emotions, information against understanding and integration. The breach of consensus leads in both cases to a severe banishment from society.
Finally, to verbal language, we can add other language forms: a behavioral grammar shared by enough people so that whoever masters it can be integrated into the group.
Through understandings of the artificial feature of money, we can, by translation, help to achieve many other consensuses – and question their essentiality, invite to test the absence thereof so as to apprehend reality.
Finally, we can investigate the consensus we share with ourselves.
Of a cognitive or emotional order, they proceed from generalization (since they have not manifested themselves in us several times, so they are part of our “normal” functioning.)
As the adventurer of social bond questions the consensus, financial,
As the poet calls into question the linguistic consensus,
The spiritual adventurer, behind the fugitive and functional character, questions the cognitive consensus, like the other two domains, and does not seek to decline them, but to go beyond a relationship of dependence, to push aside the limits of untouchable definitions, to find, within the constraint of consensus, the liberating breakthrough.
©FJ September 2022
Recueils / Participations
Telegram (Publications et Pratique)
Notes & Silence 
Language depends on a degree of mutually agreed meaning of aural symbols.
Writing depends on a mutually agreed significance of visual symbols.
Money depends entirely on a mutually agreed acceptance of the veracity of balance sheets – generally with no discernable physical currency behind them.
Therefore, money depends on the acceptance of a lie. The degree of inaccuracy in the other instances is rather more subtle.
But all symbols are representations, and, therefore, not a reality.
If we agree on that point, do we have a consensus?
If so, I may declare my position false. Just to avoid being trapped by agreed inaccuracies.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I guess we do…or we don’t, in case agreeing would equate a breach of consensus.
I see consensuses as necesarily moving / dynamic…
I must admit I really have a hard time sticking to whatever has been temporarily fixed in a text.
This makes me thing of how dangerous externally imposed or articially induced consensuses can be harming to our psyche/Body complexes.
any reference to current context is fortuitous.
But I do subscribe to every line you wrote,
For now.
thanks for reading all this content.
upstream, no meaning at all.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
A consensus may change – perhaps is more likely to do so the more are involved.
It can be hardened into prejudice. It can be misrepresented by media.
It is dangerous
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
perhaps it is our mindful withdrawal which allows best consensuses to change.
Ho, the media, you said…I’m surprised.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne