The wise men of Egypt, I think, also understood this, either by scientific or innate knowledge, and when they wished to signify something wisely, did not use the forms of letters which follow the order of words and propositions and imitate sounds and the enunciations of philosophical statements, but by drawing images and inscribing in their temples one particular image of one particular thing they manifested the non-discursiveness of the intelligible world, that is, that every image is a kind of knowledge and wisdom and is a subject of statements, all together one, and not discourse or deliberation.
-Plotinus, Enneads V.8.6
I remember reading an analysis of the concept of the superiority of visible signs to phonetic signs when I read Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology as a teenager. Funny how one's reading always comes back to the same themes, but this time with a newer sense of what is entailed.
One of the recurring themes on this blog is a distrust for the discursive and a sense that we must attempt to return to a more intuitive sense of how we view and interpret the world. While arguing may be a great impulse in human nature, the interminible and indefinitve nature of contemporary arguments may be a very recent phenomenon. The inability to appeal to the symbolic and experimental founts of knowledge may play a huge part in this; now knowledge must be reduced to quantitative criteria, to "code", and arguments are never really won (since no one convinces anyone else of anything), but rather merely stalemated. Wisdom, beauty, and beatitude are thus excluded from our highest faculties, and the monotony and tyrrany of information withers away at the human sense.
At least in my opinion...