The Trap of Ambiguity and the Limitation of Clarity
How Ambiguity Takes Away Freedom through Liberation and How Clarity can be Self Constricting
Last week, I wrote a detailed analysis on the importance of ambiguity using the works of William Empson and Emily Dickinson as anchors.
This week, I thought of exploring another dimension of ambiguity, i.e., its tendency to efface freedom by offering liberation, and its complex relationship with its counterpart, i.e., clarity which comes with its own limitations.
These concepts, I posit, are not merely linguistic tools but profound existential forces that shape our perception, our choices, and ultimately, our freedom.
Ambiguity, in its vast openness, can both liberate and confine us, while clarity, with its precise definitions, can both restrict and free us. This duality strikes at the core of our being, challenging us to navigate the delicate balance between knowing and not-knowing, between defining our path and losing ourselves in the possibilities.
This paradox is far from new. Every philosopher, from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, has had something to say in this regard. Throughout this contemplation, I will try my best, to include as many of these arguments as possible, to give a more well pronounced view in this regard.
My aim is not to resolve the tension between ambiguity and clarity but to illuminate its contours, to understand how we might live, think, and speak within its bounds and ultimately, find the middle ground.
The Nature of Language and Thought
Language is not just a communicative tool but a foundation that shapes and is shaped by our perceptions, thoughts, and understandings of reality.
A Constructive and Constraining Tool
Ludwig Wittgenstein offers a starting point with his proposition in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". This statement depicts language's dual capacity to construct our reality and circumscribe our cognitive horizons. Language, in Wittgenstein's later works, particularly in Philosophical Investigations, is further depicted as a set of games, each with its own rules defining meanings. This analogy elucidates that language's meaning is contingent upon usage and context, rather than fixed references.
Building on Wittgenstein's foundation, Ferdinand de Saussure's semiotic theory introduces the concept of the 'sign,' comprising the 'signifier' (the form of a word or phrase) and the 'signified' (the conceptual meaning).
Saussure's dichotomy emphasises the arbitrary relationship between signifiers and signified, describing how linguistic symbols gain meaning through their differential relationships rather than inherent properties.
Revealing and Concealing
In Being and Time, Heidegger posits that language is the "house of Being," where our understanding of existence is both articulated and obscured. He suggests that through language, Being is disclosed, yet the very essence of what it means to 'be' is often concealed by the everydayness of linguistic expressions, leading to a forgetfulness of being.
J.L. Austin's theory of speech acts in How to Do Things with Words contributes to understanding the performative nature of language, where saying something can also be doing something. This perspective broadens the conception of language from a descriptive tool to an active participant in shaping reality.
A Reflection and Moulder of Thought
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, albeit controversial, offers an intriguing lens through which to view the influence of language on thought. It proposes that the structure of a language affects its speakers' cognition and worldview. While strong forms of linguistic determinism have been critiqued, weaker forms suggest a significant, albeit not exclusive, influence of language on thought processes.
Ambiguity and the Double-Edged Sword of Liberation
Ambiguity, at its core, refers to the capacity of language to support multiple interpretations. This characteristic, inherent in words, phrases, and sentences, creates diverse understandings and meanings. Umberto Eco, in Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, elucidates the role of ambiguity as a semiotic strategy, not merely a linguistic defect, suggesting its potency in enriching texts and discourses with layers of meaning. Eco’s perspective considers ambiguity not as a flaw to be eradicated but as a feature that adds depth and complexity to linguistic exchanges.
Ambiguity as Liberation
The liberating aspect of ambiguity is heavily discussed in existentialist philosophy. Søren Kierkegaard, often regarded as the first existentialist philosopher, implicitly leveraged the concept of ambiguity through his exploration of subjective truth and the multiplicity of human experience. In works like Either/Or, Kierkegaard presented the reader with choices and paradoxes that defy clear-cut interpretations, thereby highlighting the liberating, yet daunting, nature of existential ambiguity.
The Trap of Ambiguity
The liberation that ambiguity brings is not without its pitfalls. The paradox of choice, a concept popularised by Barry Schwartz, posits that an abundance of choices can lead to decision paralysis and dissatisfaction. In the context of ambiguity, the multitude of possible interpretations can similarly result in a state of indecision, where the individual feels trapped by the very freedom ambiguity provides.
The existentialist theme of "choice anxiety" further exemplifies this trap. Jean-Paul Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, discusses the burden of freedom and the angst it entails, arguing that the responsibility of choosing in a world without predefined meaning can be overwhelming.
This existential burden, exacerbated by linguistic ambiguity, illustrates how the absence of clarity can lead to a feeling of entrapment, where the liberating potential of ambiguity converges with a sense of confinement.
Clarity and the Double-Edged Sword of Limitation
The pursuit of clarity in language, while often lauded as a virtue in communication and thought, harbours its own complexities and contradictions.
Clarity, in the linguistic sense, pertains to the precision and straightforwardness with which ideas, intentions, and meanings are conveyed. It is often associated with the reduction of ambiguity, aiming for a one-to-one correspondence between signifiers and their signified concepts.
Gottlob Frege, in Über Sinn und Bedeutung (On Sense and Reference), distinguished between the sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung) of a term, advocating for a level of clarity in understanding the distinct ways in which language refers to the world.
Clarity as a Path to Freedom
The quest for clarity is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment’s ideals of reason, knowledge, and progress. Immanuel Kant in What is Enlightenment?, advocates for the pursuit of clear, rational thought as the pathway to intellectual liberation and autonomy.
Clarity and the Confinement of Thought and Possibility
The pursuit of clarity is not without its limitations. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who initially sought to delineate the precise limits of language, later recognised the richness of linguistic games and the folly of seeking absolute clarity in all forms of life.
In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues that the quest for definitive clarity can lead to a misunderstanding of how language functions, effectively confining our understanding within rigid boundaries that do not always reflect the fluidity of human thought and experience.
The emphasis on clarity can stifle creativity and innovation. As Edward de Bono noted in Lateral Thinking, the clear and linear paths of conventional logic often preclude the exploration of novel solutions and ideas, which frequently emerge from ambiguity and uncertainty. Thus, while clarity can guide and inform, it can also constrain the imaginative and creative capacities essential for problem-solving and invention.
The Illusion of Freedom in Clarity
The allure of clarity lies in its promise of certainty and control, offering a safe harbour from complexity and confusion. Yet, this promise can be illusory. Friedrich Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, critiques the dogmatic pursuit of truths as manifestations of a will to power that masks the fundamentally interpretative nature of knowledge and reality.
Nietzsche’s critique suggests that the certainty afforded by clarity may lead to a false sense of freedom, ensnaring individuals within a web of oversimplified truths and reducing the richness of existence to a monochrome of absolutes.
The Golden Mean
So, when it comes to language, where is the line between too much ambiguity and too much clarity? What is the most optimum heuristic to abide by? What is the Golden Mean, as proposed by Aristotle, i.e., the desirable middle between two extremes?
The answer, as can be expected, is nuanced. In language and thought, this balance does not prescribe a static midpoint but rather a dynamic equilibrium, responsive to the ever-changing demands of communication, understanding, and interpretation.
The Contextual Value of Value
The value of ambiguity and clarity is profoundly context-dependent, varying significantly across different domains of knowledge, forms of expression, and situational demands.
In scientific discourse, for example, clarity is paramount, as precision and replicability are essential for the accumulation of knowledge and the advancement of technology.
Conversely, in the arts and literature, ambiguity can be a source of richness and depth, deriving multiple interpretations that reflect the complexity of human experience. The deliberate use of ambiguity by authors and artists, as I discussed in the previous article, can provoke thought, evoke emotion, and engage the audience's imagination in ways that clear, unambiguous works, simply CANNOT.
Strategies for Balancing Ambiguity and Clarity
Articulating a decision, strategy, or a plan, often involves navigating through a fog of uncertainty. The crux lies in recognising when to embrace ambiguity as a source of flexibility and innovation, and when to seek clarity to ensure direction and coherence.
The most effective writing is one that strikes a balance, leveraging the creative potential of ambiguity while grounding actions in clear, strategic objectives. Here are a few tokens to consider.
Set Objectives that are Optimally Clear: The conventional wisdom in decision making science is often to begin with a clear understanding of the goals and outcomes desired. While sensible, this operation is not always useful. One approach to consider could be to make sure your objectives are optimally clear, i.e., clear enough to not stall your progress.
For example, if you'd like to devise a plan to learn a language, setting a clear goal, such as “I will complete an A1 level course of French in 2 months”, may be too specific and clear and might hinder your creative thinking.
A more optimal approach may be, “I will learn enough French to be able to offer greetings and introduce myself. If I enjoy doing that, then I will consider pursuing an A1 level course in French”. This objective is optimally clear with just the right amount of ambiguity in it to deploy creativity to this process and refine your steps as you go along.
Cultivate a Tolerance for Ambiguity: All writing has some level of ambiguity and yours will be no different. Learn to see ambiguity not as a threat but as an opportunity. Having some manner of ambiguity in your work creates room not just for you to improve but for others to suggest improvements, thus making your work collaborative in nature. This is crucial for thriving in complex and uncertain environments.
Employ Iterative Writing: Utilise iterative processes that allow for adjustments based on feedback and new information. This approach leverages both the exploratory nature of ambiguity and the directive power of clarity.
Journal: Maintain open lines of communication with yourself using journaling as a tool. Writing your thoughts helps you in formalising your own thinking. This enhances the ability to navigate ambiguity and crystallise clear strategies.
The balance between ambiguity and clarity is a fundamental aspect of the human experience. By navigating this balance with intention and awareness, we can harness the strengths of both clarity and ambiguity, enriching our understanding and creativity. A balanced approach requires a nuanced and flexible engagement with language and thought. This opens pathways to more meaningful interactions with others and with ourselves in a diverse and complex world.