[C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: When The New Wittgenstein Arrived
- From: CJ <castalia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:47:45 -0500
Re: The Theological Dispute between Sean and Stuart,
With all due respect to both of our fellow list members' positions (albeit in
varying different degrees), while I have appreciated the opportunity to inspect
various ACTUAL statements by Wittgenstein (and to a lesser extent some of his
disciples such as Rhees and Monk, whom I consider, by the way, to only be
reporters and to possess no especial gifts of insight into matters
philosophical and determing my own 'practice" ) ; and while I have taken note
of some of the "facts" and "dates" of publication to which your "theological"
discussion has led me, I frankly do not care very much about what "facts"
either of you "believes" to be the appropriate "mythology" background of the
Wittgensteinian texts insofar as the nature and validity of your comments don't
impact much on how I plan to continue in my 'practice" of reading and examining
the Wittgensteinian texts themselves (they can only say what they say) or in my
own thoughts in regard to the issues I sense they raise as I read them.
This is not because I think that both are wrong or completely illogical, or
that one of them is more correct than the other, or that they "contradict" each
other in any meaning ful way but, oddly enough, in view of the parallel thread
in this list pertaining to "religious experience", I believe that your
'controversy" and its limited relevance to the "practice" embodies perfectly
the issues taken up (at least partially) in the thread on religious experience
and the Martin paper. As the reader (who wishes to bear with me on this
adventure) can note, I have expressly sought to frame my point in terms of the
vocabulary of that other 'thread' pertaining to "varieties of religious
experience"
THE "PRACTICE" of EXAMINING ÅND BENEFITTING FROM W's WRITING vs THE THEOLOGICAL
QUIBBLING OVER HISTORICAL FACTS
Actually, the controversy smacks of various Christian theological and other
sorts of discussions of ostensible empirically grounded "facts" which,
ultimately, in no way actually impact on the "belief" of those who choose to
engage in a "practice". In this case, the practice is (for me at least) , for
God's sake, just reading what Wittgenstein had to say and making sense of it as
best as we can and then "going on" beyond bickering into making the practice of
reading Wittgenstein a productive and useful one, in terms of going on to
understand issues in our world which deal with politics, psychology, science,
religion, anthropology and so on.
In the end, I hope that most of us are interested in the "practice" of coming
to understand Wittgenstein's work as part of a "life" in which it plays a role,
instead of failing to "get a life" and digging into theological ruminations
about which disciple said what and when and what was going on in the inner
recesses of Wittgensteins' mind at which moment of time. And I hope that this
understanding is not based on an exegetical quibbling over the mythology of the
past but on making use of the words written to actually achieve something in
our lives and careers by sharpening our grasp of the "language games" within
which our lives are lived.
Those of us who are members of this list actually will more or less very likely
admit or confess to a "belief" in the value and merits of the words upon which
we spend our time. This value and merit has very little to do with the supposed
"mythology" of who said what , much like Christian arguers and bickerers can
endlessly contest which disciple of Christ or which theologian of antiquity
said what and when, and which proved closer to inner essence of the intent or
nature or qualities of Christ, while pursing a practice on a daily basis from
which they benefit either in spirit, or skills, or health, or simply the
pursuit of their happiness.
When we view a controversy of this kind, I believe that many of us (I
certainly) take everything either of you say about what was on Wittgenstein's
mind and in his heart at any given moment in time with a grain of salt. Fine.
And, as the ongoing proliferation of theological reasoning about supposed ideas
on the minds of various folks last century goes on and on, it is clear that
there is an issue of 'belief" here (that we can and ,according to Wittgenstein,
easily do tolerate), but that there is no useful issue or relevance to our
"practice" here of whether or not any alleged given fact that either disputant
can point to and allege in the words of yet another pointer and alleger in the
past, or, going further back,whether any supposed ideas of Monk or Rhees, can
be considered worthy of much more than passing interest in terms of how it
impacts on our 'belief" and our interest in and continued urge to engage in the
practice...and making use of the Wittgenstein in a productive way.
THE UNDERCUTTING or DISTRACTION FROM "PRACTICE" by ATTACKING or ENTANGLING IN
HISTORICAL MYTHOLOGY
My own suspicion here is that what we have here is that one of you, SWM,, as I
read many of his pejorative comments in regard to modus operandi of
Wittgenstein in putting down his words ( "disingenuous" , "confused", and so on
) possessed of a provocative inclination and underlying hypercritical and
sometimes contemptuous view of Wittgenstein's words and who routinely seeks to
have recourse to some kind of gossip (referred to above as 'mythology") in
order to distract and undercut the "belief" that others of us have in the
'usefulness' of dealing directly with the philosophical concepts of
Wittgenstein (NOTE: I did not state that this "belief" of many of us in
devoting our energies to W's words is one in the absolute correctness or
divinity of his statements, but only in the usefulness of thoroughgoing and
actual examination of his words as "our practice').
Moreover, there seems to be a clear pattern of opinion on SWM's part, as
expressed in regard to his own experiences in other areas of 'belief" in his
religious background, and in his Zen background, and in other areas of his
life, where he becomes entangled in and focuses upon the concern with the
ostensible mythologies or "justifications" of patterns of conduct and
involvements in these 'games" of life in order to have discredited the
practices (at least for himself in those instances....and clearly by
insinuation and innuendo in the case of the adherence to actually dealing with
the statements of Wittgenstein without basing statement on one sort of gossip
or another
By doing so, I sense that SWM has somehow acted as a gadfly or provocateur and
triggered a defense on the part of another one of us, Sean, in regard to the
implications of the implicit "theological" assault on the practice, (which I
find commendable on Sean's part), but which I find to be much akin to the
defending response of a "believer" and bonafide participant in a certain school
of religious thought, or, as some have said, a devoted "participant" in a
certain "language game" embodying a form of life being goaded into a needless
support of the belief in the validity of the examination of the texts
themselves. In this current situation, the "form of life" of relevance which
entails involvement, is 'philosophical pursuit" as opposed to that form of
life which we have discussed in our other thread and which entails "spiritual
and/or religious involvement".
So we can see for ourselves how the goading of a participant in a "practice"
by a theoligcal quibbling can lead to a digression by the 'believer" which
leads to indulging and enabling an expedition into 'mythological" background
which is not at all necessary, but which only serves to distract from the
'practice' and what many of us are on this site to get on with. And
whichever way such a needless excursion into "beliefs that " various historical
facts either were or were not the case eventuates, it misses the point and can
only distract from our "belief IN" the usefulness of the 'practice" itself.
In other words, what I mean to say by way of this adventure into analogy is to
those who seek in ensnare those in the 'practice", by means of innuendo and
implicit derogation, into theological bickering: "Get a Life".....and indeed,
hopefully, that is the point of the "practice" of devotion to the examination
of Wittgenstein's text is supposed to do for us...give us a means of
productively integrating his wisdom into our lives and the progress of our
society.
HOW, AFTER ÅLL, IS THE GAP BRIDGED BETWEEN FORM OF LIFE and LANGUAGE GAMES:
In a footnote to all this, which, by the way, might actually have some bearing
on the "practice" of directly confronting and examining and benefitting
fromWittgensteins ideas, it seems that, as I have been writing this
journalistic critique of the SWM/Sean controversy, I have noted that, while
commentators, including us, routinely acknowledge the importance of "forms of
life" and "language games" and the relevance of the two to each other, there is
a significant gap in our speaking of these---perhaps because there is no
explicit linkage of these two in Wittgenstein's work.
That gap, it appears, is the mystery of just how some of us....or even all of
us..... ever find ourselves involved in one or another language game as an
embodiment of our predicament and situation within a "form of life". Isn't
this where the question of "belief" has to enter in....with the "belief" being
not so much the belief ithat the "facts" of the mythology behind the practice
which motivates or justifies our engaging in that practice are either this or
that, but the "belief in" the validity of that practice which arises as part of
the act and activity of joining in and allows the participating in the language
game. Just a thought for those of us who wish to get beyond the bickering
which results from being distracted by some of us into endless historical,
empirical based theologizing and gossip. Perhaps we can actually, one day, get
down to examiing just how various language games are rooted and emergent from
various forms of life.......and whether Wittgenstein gives us any clues of
this....or whether we must extend his work in order to gain clarity into this
relationship.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:47 AM, SWM wrote:
> As you know I've read the Monk biography
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] Re: Re: When The New Wittgenstein Arrived - CJ
