The question of knowing the essence, the absolute, the truth ... has gone through history. "The essential is invisible to the eyes", claims TheLittlePrince to the Fox.
(In Philosophical Observations) Wittgenstein says that what belongs to the world’s essence cannot be described by language; Heidegger would say that the Being (of things) is hidden any time we want to access it. Wittgenstein curiously agrees with Heidegger on that the essential is hidden.
For one, it is unpronounceable. For the other, if it could be known, it would be through its absence, making it not less complicated.
This is the problem of words and things. When we say or write something, we reify it, we convert it into entities, as Heidegger would say. He explains that every time we pretend to speak about the Being - in the last instance, the essence of things - what we really talk about is their being. Wittgenstein explains in a similar idea.
Wittgenstein therefore states that there is no way to explain the essential because when you want to describe it you go through the rules of grammar -the game (i.e., standards) of language-; and, accordingly, we would reduce the totality of the essence described.
This means that every time we talk/write about something, we break its entirety because we could not describe the whole or the totality of something since it would be infinite. Then, by fractioning it, it is no longer the whole of that essence.
The Western tradition has tried to access the truth, the essence or the absolute through interpretation (Hermeneutics). The Eastern tradition achieves the truth through silence. But the Little Prince changes our perspective, our sense of perception with which you could access the essence / truth. Break the phonocentric binary formula: word / silence; logos / emptiness, for closing the eyes and feeling (with the heart).
However, could gramar still enunciate it?