[Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein's meaning is use.
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:42:04 -0700
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:23 PM, BruceD <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, CJ <wittrs@...> wrote:
>
>> The "use" of which it makes sense to speak is NOT the personalized,
>> incipient about-to-be expressed flicker of a word, but is the role
>> that the expression or word fills in the playing of the language game
>> of which it is a an aspect and part, how it helps hold the game
>> together and how it enables that game to reside firmly and solidly in
>> an underlying 'Form of life".
>
> Given the above definition, why isn't it in accord with LW's use of use
> to point out that the role of of the "incipient about-to-be expressed"
> is also that which "holds the game together"....etc.
>
There is what I'd call the "moment of meaning" in some of the
investigations, especially in Part 2 with the duckrabbit stuff. When
that picture is seen to shift, when the new gestalt gels, there's that
experience of enlightenment (about whatever, maybe not long-lasting).
In my Guide to Wittgenstein posts (way back in this archive), I
emphasized you'd be on the wrong track if looking to any special
spatiotemporal phenomenon or event to be 'the meaning' of a word or
gesture. That's faithful to the chess metaphor, where the meaning of
'pawn' has to do with the whole grammar of chess, i.e. to understand
the meaning of a word, you already need to have a lot of the language
figured out. A pawn is not just a lump of plastic or wood, any more
than a pain is simply that sensation you're having (even if painful).
However, that all should be balanced with these so-called "meaningful
experiences" that we might have any time, revelations, aha! moments or
whatever. When people speak of some movie or play or other art as
being "meaningful" it may well be with reference to this "power to
move" or "power to alter one's perceptions" (even permanently, and
we'd hope for the better or why pay admission?). There's no need to
wait for neuroscience to tell us "why" these events are meaningful, in
terms of brain chemistry. We're not asking them "why".
> In short, if the meaning of our words is in the use, what uses can be
> illegitimate?
>
> bruce
>
So often this tone of "permitted" versus "out of bounds" in some of
these commentaries, whereas the dichotomy in LW's later writings is
much closer to the sense versus nonsense of the Tractatus.
To be in nonsense is like being off road, spinning one's wheels in the
sand. Might one get somewhere? Sure, if you're adept at working in
nonsense namespaces, you might 'erect a tent' as it were, and create
new sense for people to share ("welcome to my tent!").
However, most people with off-road-capable vehicles stick to the roads
for a reason. They're fish out of water if not following a well
trodden track. Off-road experience results in dents, lost resale
value, nothing rewarding, no aha!
Let's be aware if we start treating LW like some disapproving
patriarch who forbids or frowns upon or might get mad if we... [fill
in the blank]. That's to buy into the sick fantasies of the
Popperians and their sado-masochistic "fire poker" imagery. Not
something to encourage, if wanting to steer clear of self-indulgent
immaturity.
Kirby
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
Other related posts:
