Concerning the famous phrase of Wittgenstein "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", we can confidently speak and say, e.g., that gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance, and definitely not with the inverse cube. And we do not disagree on that.
But suppose that I write down some deliberately absurd lines, such as:
"Concerning the law of gravity and its intimate connection with all pseudo-problems of philosophy, absurd as it already seems, my intention is nonetheless fairly serious in its hopefully revitalizing preoccupation with the limits of representational language as opposed to subconscious potato-peeling. After all, why should any form of existential impenetrability not be recast as a playful reformation of some yet unformed linguistic habit?"
It may not be the best example, but my point is that if one enters a state of auto-suggestion in trying to make sense of the above, I think it is quite possible that one will succeed in at least forging one or two meaningful conceptual connections that otherwise would be very hard to pin down.
I mean that language seems to have a hidden power of triggering qualitative connotations that should not be left unexplored, the reason being that they can lead to a kind of mental activity different from the scientific pinning down of quantitative laws. That different kind of activity is also worthwhile for the following reason: it raises the question of whether philosophical disagreement is always due to an inflexibility in forging missing connections based on qualitative, aesthetic principles that are yet not well-known.
In view of the above, my questions are:
- Are there examples of philosophical works where language is used in a deliberately absurd but thought-provoking way?
- Is the above point of view totally misguided, in that the as yet narrow field of our quantitative, mathematical, scientific method of agreement is a clear indication of a vastly rich playground of interaction that lies ahead, being our only hope for bridging every kind of impulsive disagreement?
[EDIT]: In other words, I'm asking about the history & current work on the problem of whether objectively true and false poetic fancy can be conceived and clearly separated from each other, based on something other than personal opinion, similarly to falsifiable scientific statements not being based on personal opinion.