45 mins read
Hat: Sinan Dogan

by the Pen and what it writes…

Writing is considered one of the most important milestones in history. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Sumerian writing system have often been referred to as the beginning of writing, and some have even thought that history began with them. The Latin alphabet, which is now used in many languages around the world, can be traced back to Egypt and the Phoenicians in a region called Mesopotamia. The regular systems such as notches, knots, etc. that have been excavated from this region and other parts of the world are also taken as examples of primitive writing. The main difference between these two is that the writing system in use today is a regular and regular writing system, which has increased its functionality in many respects. The basis of this writing system in a broad sense is pictography. The known history of pictographic writing can be traced back tens of thousands of years through cave paintings.

There is no doubt that writing, in the context of cave paintings, has had a significant impact on human consciousness and culture. In fact, it is too early to say whether the later transformation of pictographic writing into today’s writing system of symbolic letters represents a complete transition. The continuation of the miniature writing used in history and the writings such as emoji, meme gifs, etc. used in digital communication environments today; notations used in symbolic logic, notes representing the sound structure in music, coding in information systems are clear examples of the intertwining of images, concepts and symbols in writing systems and the continued evolution or diversification of writing.

Since the diversification and evolution of writing strongly affects the consciousness and culture of those in contact with it, this change is important in many ways. Again, since the importance of writing is in proportion to the effects it has on those who are in contact with it, those who are in contact with it should be opened up in terms of their contact with it and connected to it in a broad sense. The meaning of written history should be read and evaluated from this perspective.

In terms of opening up those who are in contact with writing, this work necessitates a transition to a metaphysical framework. Because those who are in contact with writing are beings with consciousness and language, which we can classify in at least two categories: the writer who writes the writing and the reader who reads the writing. Writing is a conscious contact between these two beings, for these reasons.

What is the relationship of this connection with signs of one kind or another and what is its effect within this relationship? The answer to this question will show what the meaning of what is described as writing is within this metaphysical framework.

Before this context can be unpacked, however, writing must first be grounded in a metaphysical operation and these foundations must be properly demonstrated.

This article aims to draw attention to this point. Then, in a separate study, it aims to create a medhal for the examination of what is called writing within a metaphysical framework.

In this paper, let us consider how this metaphysical framework might be drawn:

First of all, in order to understand that without seeing the author and the reader within a metaphysical framework, this effect cannot be sufficiently unpacked, and in order for this framework to immediately appear in the most striking way, the shortest way to go is to look at what is here and now. Since it is not possible to adequately look at what happened before without looking at what is happening now, looking at what is happening now is, in another sense, an approach that can also open up the memory of what happened before.

Since such an opening of memory naturally implies, in a sense, the suspension of many habits and preconceptions about what is now, both looking at what is now and opening the memory of what was, also depends on the success of being able to re-establish the present as a before and this moment. In this way, this now will be able to determine the entire temporal nature of the metaphysical framework as a higher now, a higher this-moment, in which that earlier now is simultaneously unfolded in another kind of now.

Moreover, in terms of this meta-present, each particular moment, as each present, can also offer a more real and more testable quality than any other kind of framework. Thus, by expressing a scientific framework from a different perspective, it can also provide the possibility of examining writing from both a metaphysical and, within current expectations, a scientific perspective.

This possibility should also be understood as a new way for writing and linguistics in a broader sense to embark on a new course towards solving their blocked problems. Because if the remnants of the structures and systems of the past can be opened in this moment as an upper present, it will be possible for these remnants to gain the quality of a door opening to the living of their own history as a trace. Otherwise, the life that is not understood in terms of remains will be left incomplete, and no way will be found other than constructing a life from the remaining meanings, and history will continue to be nothing more than an unfounded mythology that belongs neither to the past nor to the present.

But something that is untrue cannot be accepted as truth. Nor can we accept history as a science of untruths. If we open what is here now and find that there is an untruth here, we cannot ignore this untruth, just as we cannot ignore such a situation for previous moments. Also, we should be able to find the essentials that we find by opening up what is here now, in the previous situation, in its own particular way, so that the essence of the matter is one, so that the sameness is established in this present moment. The different things that are different in this one and the unique relation of these different things to this one and the same will be real for each present moment as the unity of unity.

So let us ask the question that needs to be asked in order to find a way through all this:

What is happening here now, that is, what is happening here now, when the writer is in the state of writing?

First of all, the first thing that draws attention is the fact that a number of marks are drawn on a blank sheet of paper in a certain order. Whether we call these marks symbolic or just a means, they express such a great significance for a writing that, in the end, the quality of “writing” is entirely assumed by these marks. However, it is not immediately possible to call this set of signs “writing” for all that it is.

For one thing, this sign phrase is not in a position to be a basis in itself for the “meaning” and “order” necessary for something to be a writing. Writing, at whatever level, is writing if there is a “meaning”. As for the matter of order, as explained in great detail in the article titled “Read”, since it is established after the principles such as juxtaposition, succession and pointing correlations are met, it cannot be said that the sign phrase here is in an “order” or “arrangement” by itself.

Accordingly, the “meanings” and the “regularity” established in a certain way must be transcendentally present in this one blank sheet of paper. In this case, we have to think that this writing on a blank sheet of paper, in terms of its meanings and regularities, is in fact based on transcendental principles. In other words, at this point, if the transcendent principles of this set of signs, such as the “meaning” connection and the “organizing” ordering ability, are canceled, we cannot call what is perceived here writing. So if we remove the principles of meaning and organization, what we are left with is at best just a collection of signs. In other words, these signs, without the principles of meaning and organization, do not by themselves constitute writing.

This step, which, if understood, can be reached immediately, shows very clearly how, in the first hand, the work enters directly into a metaphysical framework.

We can express this in a single sentence: If one excludes transcendental or transcendental principles such as meaning, order, signification, and in this respect the activity of representation necessary for juxtaposition, succession and signifying relations, what is left here is a set of signs, a set of signs, and that is all. We cannot call this writing either. So one of the essentials of calling what is here writing depends on the presence of these transcendental or transcendental principles, and these must be taken into account in order to unpack what is here.

But when we take our time at this point and continue to question how this remaining set of signs has the property of being a sign, or of being capable of pointing to something, it becomes clear that, like meaning and order, the property of “being a sign” is something that is based on other principles. For “sign” simply means a “relationship”. “Relationship”, on the other hand, means “connecting”, “relating”, “correlating” one thing with another in some way. The fact that one thing and another thing “relate” to each other is either spontaneous or depends on some other principle, some other thing. We cannot say that the “things” that we refer to here as “bundles of signs” are spontaneously in relation to each other. Therefore, a relationship that can be thought of here is related to the fact that something else, somewhere else, makes their relationship possible. This relationship, then, shows that these “things” are not “necessary” in themselves, but only possible in terms of another basis. In other words, if something else, some other basis, had not “attached” these things to each other, had not made this possible, these things could not be said to exhibit a “relation” in terms of themselves. For these reasons, it is also not possible to call them signs on their own.

From all these perspectives, we must say that these “things” do not qualify as “signs” because they do not have the “relationship” necessary to be a sign. Since the “relationship” here is derived from something else, from somewhere else, the “sign” characteristic must be based on another basis. That is to say, these letters, these words, these sentences, which are “bundles of signs”, are not actually “signs”, just as they are not yet “writing”.

That is to say, the alphabet seen on this blank paper and the things drawn by means of this alphabet according to the existing Turkish spelling order are neither “meaning”, nor “order”, nor “order”, nor “relation”, nor “sign”; nor are they “writing”. On the contrary, in order to call them “alphabets” and “the Turkish spelling order” at any given time, the characteristics of “meaning”, “order”, “relationship” and “sign” must be attributed to them, that is, they must be given.

But from where?

This question is often answered as the consensus and invention of linguistic beings, or as the unexamined causation of other sources. But we are not interested in these quick or secretive answers that point to places whose meaning and nature are in many ways unclear. For the consensus or invention of beings with language is not the answer to how something comes to be able to relate, organize and express meaning. What we are really asking, for example, is what language beings are and how they are able to give this sign relation. It is this kind of questioning that is the reason why the work has entered into a metaphysical framework.

In order for this context to be well established, we must first be able to clearly state the following conclusion: When what is considered “writing” here is stripped of all of these, namely “meaning”, “order” and “being a relation / sign”, all that is left is something drawn/stroked on a blank sheet of paper. In old terms, we can also call this “printed”. Matbu means “printed”. Tab means “to strike, print, leave a mark”. These are only tabs in the sense of things that have been struck and drawn. In other words, in this case, there is no meaning, no relationship, and no order in the matbu(āt) itself, that is, in what is printed; and what is printed is not “writing”. Nevertheless, the essence of its being “writing” is that the author has given it a “tab” as if it were “writing”, that is, he has put it as such, based on other principles, other foundations in itself.

These foundations, these other principles, are the foundations and principles that make writing. It is these that need to be examined so that we can see what we are doing when we write now.

Now, in this respect, it is not possible to call it “writing” without the author, and without the author’s tab, and without the “principles” and “fundamentals” that are (previously) stored in the tab. In another sense, this conclusion can also be understood in the sense that the tab is not a place of writing. This is because writing can exist even without the medium, because the “meaning”, “organization” and other correlations that the writer and the scribe write without the medium can exist even without the medium.

But where, that is, in what space? If this writing is not in tab, where is it? This is the way to think about the question.

For someone who is able to realize that writing is not in tab and to ask where writing is, the study of the metaphysics of writing becomes clearer.


This writing, which is not in the tab, is, of course, in the writer and in the reader who can contact the writer; that is, not in the blank paper or any other such place. Therefore, the metaphysical field of writing is also a field in which the writer and the reader come into contact; and it is in the bases of this field in the writer and the reader.

That is to say, the space of writing, and in this sense the ground of writing, is another common space that can be found in both the writer and the reader, not the blank paper, the tab and the set of signs and alphabet thought to be composed of these tabs.

This space, the space where the writer and the reader come into contact through writing, has transcended the tab, the blank paper and the alphabet.

This space is language. So writing is in language.

In terms of this result, what is happening here now is, in fact, the writer and the reader coming into contact in a space of language, transcending the tab, the alphabet and the paper.

The metaphysics of writing is therefore within the domain of the metaphysics of language.

We can clearly see that the author writes in a language space. And the reader reads in a language space. The work takes place in language.

Therefore, we cannot talk about writing without language, before language begins, no matter whether it is a tab, notch, knot, knot, excavation, striking or any other form of imprinting. Because the history of writing begins with language, begins with the history of language. As a result, the beginning of language precedes the beginning of any kind of impact.

Without the space of language, without the establishment of the space of language, this writing cannot be written, and it cannot be read; that is, the writer and the reader cannot come into contact. No matter what level of alphabet, tab, drawing.

But this is precisely where it gets complicated. Because what makes it possible for the writer and the reader to enter into contact through writing in this language space, what makes it possible for the writer to write his/her writing in language, are other principles.

For example, writing must begin with a beginning in the place where it is located. And this beginning is prior to the beginning of the alphabet and the tab. Therefore, for example, putting an end to the alphabet and the tabah, i.e. destroying them, would not lead to the end of writing and the disappearance of writing. The end of writing, the annihilation of writing, can only be brought about by putting an end to the basis of the beginning of writing, by canceling the basis of the existence of writing.

The beginning of writing in this context, unlike the alphabet and tab, is different from the nature of a beginning in the time of the alphabet and tab. Otherwise, we cannot talk about the transcendence of writing over the alphabet and tab. For this reason, the history written by those who pursue archaeological and anthropological findings in order to investigate the “History of Writing” is not a history of writing, but rather a history of the determination of writing by tab; in other words, it is rather the history of tab. For the history of writing, it is necessary to take the history of language, the beginning of language, as a basis. In this respect, it is necessary to understand the temporality of language. More interestingly, what really needs to be unpacked through this study of history and temporality is the history of the author, the temporality of the author. And this history and temporality is somehow transcendent to the chronological history of tab. That is, it belongs to another transcendent time.

Because the basis of the principles that make writing transcend the alphabet and the tab is the author’s metaphysically conceivable principles themselves, and nothing else.

In this case, it is a question of understanding the author’s principles of writing, metaphysically; and thus opening up the beginnings of language, and consequently the history of language and the history of the author…

To see this history, we need to consider the beginning of the language of this article.

In addition to the tab, this article is also written according to the Turkish language order. But is the Turkish language order a prelude to the author and his writing?

To understand this, we need to consider the beginning of contact with Turkish. Since Turkish is a language that the author of this article learned later, the contact with Turkish comes after the author’s beginning. Therefore, Turkish is not the beginning of the author. Again, since the ability to learn a language, which is necessary for the acquisition of Turkish as a language, must be present in the author before Turkish, Turkish is not the beginning of the author’s language either.

If the author did not have the language that made it possible for him to acquire Turkish before Turkish, he would not have been able to acquire either Turkish or any other language. For example, without cognitions such as “subject”, “object” and “adjective”, which are necessary for the acquisition of Turkish, it would not have been possible for Turkish to be attached to the author. Because Turkish is, in fact, a function in which cognitions such as “subject” and “object” take shape, like other languages, like other languages, otherwise, for example, it is not the source of the cognition of “object”. Without a perception of “object” in the author, it would not be possible for him to process any “object” in Turkish. The consequence of this is obvious: Turkish is not a language into which one is born, like other languages and linguistics; it is a language of a world that is acquired later, that begins later. If the language into which one was born were languages such as Turkish, Arabic and German, the birth of, for example, the “object” and the birth of, for example, the “subject” would begin and end with Turkish, Arabic and German. However, the end of these languages cannot mean the end of the object and the subject, and therefore the end of the author.

The reason for the perception that what one is born into is one of these languages is that after one is born into the world, one is framed by these languages as if there is no before. In terms of the common essence of these languages, this frame, as a contraction, replaces the prior of the contraction, and is therefore perceived as a “beginning”. However, a simple questioning about “object”, “time” and “beginning” is a start to understand that this perception is an illusion.

These languages come after the person, as a phenomenal framework acquired from the outside world and opened up by the narrowing of the person. As far as the speakers of these languages themselves are concerned, this posteriority appears to be prior to the person, but as far as the person is concerned, it is only a posteriority.

The issue is whether what is thought to be prior to the person, but subsequent to the person, contains a “memory” for the “prior” of the person itself. To understand whether there is such a “memory” for Turkish requires the opening of Turkish. However, this article is not about the opening of Turkish. This article is about the principles of the writer’s writing in himself. In this respect, Turkish is not an essential beginning of the author and his writing, that is, of the author’s language, in the sense that it comes after the author’s writing in itself.

If the author did not have a language before these languages, he would not have been able to speak these languages. Therefore, the beginning of the author’s language, as the space of this writing, must also be transcendent to Turkish.

As a result, the Turkish language order, or Arabic, English language orders and dates, come after this article, not before.

If we are careful, the author of this writing is writing this writing now, and this writing is in the present of the whole history of writing. That is to say, the history of the author and the history of writing began with this writing, without any precedence in terms of tab and a language like Turkish.

The consequence of this is this:

The author of this article and this article he has written are written in the Turkish language, but Turkish is after the principles of this article. That is to say, the writing does not depend only on the Turkish language order. The writing of the author, and the beginning of the writing and the author, is prior to the Turkish language order. Otherwise, Turkish would have been the original beginning of writing and the author. What is true for Turkish is also true for all other acquired languages, such as German, Arabic, Albanian and others. The writer is a writer before he learns Turkish, since he learns Turkish later (what is meant by later learning here, again, is the state of being after one’s existence. That is, all of these languages come after the beginning of the existence of people born into the world). Therefore, Turkish or any other similar language, in essence, comes after the writing of the author. In other words, the history of the writer and the writing, that is, the principles of the writing of this writing now, precedes all of these actions and languages in operation of Turkish, Greek, Latin, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, notchers and knotters, excavators, stone, wood, tablet strikers, and this writing that he is writing now begins before all of these.

This conclusion means that this writing, in its essentials, does not depend on a tab, a blow, nor on a language; and this is the case now, in the present.

What, then, does this writing depend on, i.e. from where is it possible, in terms of its essentials, apart from tab, stroke and a language?

We can analyze the answer to this from many angles. But in order to keep it shorter and more coherent, we can try to understand it in terms of the points that have just distinguished it from being language-dependent.

The concepts of “subject”, “object” and “time”, which we have focused on above while freeing the work from the bonds of language, are another stopover where the principles of this writing as writing in itself will be sought.

“In fact, in many respects, stopping by the concepts of “subject”, “object” and “time” means the beginning of endless research. However, in this article, only one point among these researches has a limiting characteristic to understand how this article is written now, and it can show without prolonging the work.

This is the question of how “subject”, “object” and “time” begin for the “now” of this writing.

Let’s look at it this way:

Is this writing, in the sense that it has a beginning of its own and an end of its own, and in this sense that it ultimately carries a “meaning”, is it only in the present in itself, or is it also dependent on the before and after of being “this writing”? If the latter, then “this writing” must be an object not in itself, but in terms of a before and after. However, depending on a before and after, this writing cannot be a writing that can have its own present, that is, its own time; likewise, if the subject as the author of this writing, and the parts of the writing that can take place as subjects depending on this subject, depend on a before or after of the writing of this writing, then this subject cannot be the author of this writing and the subject parts it writes cannot be its own ground. It is then no longer necessary to ask and understand how this writing was written now. But this also poses a general problem of “non-presentness” and “non-beginning” for each “this writing”, that is, for the beginning of the writing and the beginning of the author. For the purpose of examining “this writing” now is to uncover the principles of writing in general, which can now be found in this writing. “This writing” claims to constitute a metaphysical framework of the present of writing and to serve as an introductory example, and it seeks and questions the ways of fulfilling the conditions of the first option. In this respect, “this article”, with its unique beginning and unique end, should be considered as a “this article” in itself, in the present of the general principles of writing. In other words, as of the first lines of this article, this article is in its own time in terms of the “view” it will give. This time is in a frame in itself, between the first lines and the last lines of this article. What can be considered as before and after this frame, for example, an article that can be considered as before this article, is not a before in terms of this article by this author. The author is writing this article prior to all previous writings that are considered to be dependent on tab and Turkish, and the “subject”, “object” and “time” in this article is only in its own moment, with a “subject”, “object” and “time” of its own, unlike a “subject”, “object” and “time” prior to this article. Therefore, the “subject”, “object” and “time” specific to this writing should not be regarded as having begun before this writing by its author, but as having begun uniquely with the writing of this writing. Otherwise, this writing cannot have a now, a “this moment” of its own, always depending on a before. And the now cannot accept in itself the non-priority that should be considered for writing in general.

Depending on the moment that seeks the general beginning of writing in a particular present, all this writing, in terms of its subject, object and time, began with the writing of this writing and is based on a moment in itself. In this respect, subject, object and time do not exist in any other beginning than the beginning of this writing.

We can put it more clearly as follows: As soon as this writing begins, without being prior to this writing, subject, object and time also begin now.

Therefore, the “now” in this statement is a large “this moment” that is at the same moment of the first lines and the last lines of this article. In other words, this whole writing is just one single this moment. This moment can be seen as a temporal point in the “meaning” that begins with the beginning of the text and is read at the end by the reader who sees the end.

In these respects, this writing is a unique beginning of subject, object and time.

For example, whoever begins a “writing” in the form of “this writing”, that is, in a way that preserves the conditions and the katar in “this writing”, begins and writes a “subject”, “object” and “time” that is independent of tab, language and “a writing first”.

In this respect, what is here and now from the beginning is the writing of a writing that also writes the “subject”, “object” and “time” with “this writing”.

The author of “this writing” cannot write “this writing” without writing now, at the same time, “subject”, “object”, “time”, or without having now for the first time in his writing. Tab, the time of tab; a language, that is, a language, and the time of language; and without relying on the time of something else that preceded “this writing”; that is, without these things existing.

“This writing” is, in this respect, “a world” in its own right, with its subject, object and time.

What is written in this article is “this world”.

So what is happening here now is the writing of “a world” and the reading of this “a world”.

Let us pay attention again: This world does not belong to tab, language or any other world that can be thought of as previous. It is on its own, and on its own it carries its own essentials in itself, overtly or covertly, but somehow.

When the author, as “this writing”, writes this “one world”, he is in this “one world”; but at the same time he is not. Because “this world” comes into existence with a boundary that opens at the point where the author begins to write, and at that point he is only in contact with his author.

This boundary is both author and writing, and both not-writer and not-writing.

So what is here and now, as a whole writing, actually develops to a limit. This limit is the meeting of “a world” and the perceiver of this “a world”, without yet going beyond or since the limit and thus remaining “indeterminate” both beyond and since.

The author of this article is in this place of “uncertainty”. If the reader of this article writes about what will happen and what will not happen in this place, the border will take shape. And perhaps, together, the boundary will be crossed. However, if it takes shape, the author and his writing will also make tab possible.

What is taken as the first examples of writing in history are only tabs. These tabs are only exteriors, not writing. Without the author “standing in limbo” on the inside of these tabs, that is, without the author on the border, inside a letter, inside a picture, these tabs can neither be writing nor take shape. The shape taken is a shape of the author; the tab is a trace of this shape.

This trace is, for these reasons, a source of the shaping, either externally or internally, of the one who sees in the trace the face of his own authorship. This is why writing is effective within these conditions.

“This article” is an article by the author at the border, and is a short result of the fact that not all of the article has yet been understood.

The present writing of subject, object and tense, of boundary and unboundary, is as relevant to nouns, adjectives and verbs as it is to form, and writing them down depends on the reader’s writing them down too.

The reader of this article is the writer of this article.

So, write.

Because the writer is the one who reads and the writer is the one who reads, now, at the same border, without before and after, between beyond and since, who will write the writing. As belonging to and not belonging to both, as if you existed and didn’t exist…

Ahmet Turan Esin

-He is interested in theology, mysticism and philosophy. He publishes his writings on fikrikadim.com. He gives seminars and lectures.

-İlahiyat, tasavvuf ve felsefeyle ilgilenir. Yazılarını fikrikadim.com'da yayınlar. Seminer ve dersler verir.-