[Wittrs] Re: How Wittgenstein Ended Philosophy
- From: Rajasekhar Goteti <rgoteti@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:17:43 +0530 (IST)
=== JKrishnamurti.org - Daily Quote ===
Behind the screen of words
It is important to see, is it not?, that no one can give us freedom from the
conflict of relationship. We can hide behind the screen of words, or follow a
teacher, or run to a church, or lose ourselves in a cinema or a book, or keep
on attending talks; but it is only when the fundamental process of thinking is
uncovered through awareness in relationship that it is possible to understand
and be free of that friction which we instinctively seek to avoid. Most of us
use relationship as a means of escape from ourselves, from our own loneliness,
from our own inward uncertainty and poverty, and so we cling to the outer
things of relationship, which become very important to us. But if, instead of
escaping through relationship, we can look into relationship as a mirror and
see very clearly, without any prejudice, exactly what is, then that very
perception brings about a transformation of what is, without any effort to
transform it. There is nothing to transform
about a fact; it is wh
at it is. But we approach the fact with hesitation, with fear, with a sense of
prejudice, and so we are always acting upon the fact and therefore never
perceiving the fact as it is. When we see the fact as it is, then that very
fact is the truth which resolves the problem.
The Collected Works, Vol. VI - 207
_______________________________________________
DailyQuote mailing list
To subscribe: go to http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/rss/
To unsubscribe: go to http://www.kfa.org/dq-remove.php
sekhar
--- On Thu, 17/9/09, brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: brendan downs <downs_brendan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: How Wittgenstein Ended Philosophy
To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, 17 September, 2009, 9:28 PM
Does language show we are irrational? we can and do talk about things other
then words, i.e. the world. To do this we must use language in an ilogical
way(across different categories) does this show that we are irrational or
ilogical in someway?
I will elaborate. linguistic entities can only directly refer to other
linguisic entities because they belong to the same category of entities and
indirectly to other entities i.e linguistic entities and not physical entities.
now we signify what we are talking about by putting things in quotation marks
e.g. when talking about the word cat I signify this by writing the word cat as
"cat". without the quotation marks this indicates that we are talking about an
actual physical cat.
Now when we use words sometimes we are talking about things other then words as
in above. but we seem to have it back to front. we indicate with quotation
marks that we are talking about words, but we are still in the same category of
entities. when talking about the world we are step into a different category
but we don't indicate that we are making a cross category distinction. The use
of quotation marks is back to front and that is why I question 2 things,
whether we use language in an ilogical or irrational way and the convention of
using quotation marks in the way we do. It seems if the trailer is pulling the
truck.
WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
Yahoo! India has a new look. Take a sneak peek http://in.yahoo.com/trynew
Other related posts:
