[Wittrs] Re: Aftermath
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:01:42 -0700
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
< ... >
>
> Is there some sort of reading-the-Tractatus club at Witters?
>
> Yours
> Dr Han Geurdes
>
Interestingly, our Study Circle formed with this idea to plough
through the Tractatus sequentially, appreciating its ability, as
linear DNA, to fold up, like some twisted ladder, into a bio-
philosophical catalyst, a kind of enzyme (metaphorically
speaking, although some may claim to "feel the rush" and
liken reading the Tractatus to dosing on B12 or Niacin or one
of those).
Regarding the largely carnivorous Anglophones, and their
Euro compatriots, I sense their being drawn to the Tractatus
as if to a healthy steak (oxymoron?), the best memetics
(metaphysical genomics) has to offer from liberal Vienna,
a hotbed of logical positivism and subversive speculation,
a source of a new psychoanalytic discourse (sex everywhere!),
not to mention hip happening music. Such a vibrant counter-
culture!
What could be more intellectually nutritious, than the best of
the best, the creme de la creme. Fresh uncorked Viennese philo,
chilled in the dank cellars of Oxbridge. A top-o-the-line
brainsturbation fantasy bar none (even better than fractals!).
People sit down to the Tractatus as if to a feast, knife and
fork at the ready, napkin around the neck, eyes bright with
anticipation. Let the reading begin! For the next several hours,
you will be savoring one of the great minds, a vintage classic,
enjoying a sense of logical consistency and precision rarely
achieved in human languages, which, as we all know, are
boorishly imprecise (remember, "Anglo"), a far cry from the
exalted Ivory Tower stuff those Bertie Russell types were into.
You'll be above it all, on some kind of cloud nine, for at least
the duration of your flight. Welcome to Wittgenstein Airlines.
If we roll back the timeline of history a ways, tracing back
from our own time (mid 2011 or, more precisely,
1306260272.985 seconds since the beginning of the
Epoch [0]), we may catch fleeting images of men and
women in lab coats, pronouncing phrases in authoritative
tones. They are practicing a kind of "dispassionate"
clinicism to which they feel they have license. Certification
secured, all credentials and paperwork in order. Such was
the situation of many a Nazi party researcher, tasked with
advancing the Third Reichian dream of a "super race".
They'd cobbled together some bastardized Nietzsche and
somewhere learned a kind of scientism that allowed them
a kind of Hegelian objectivity, a big picture view, in the
context of which, experimentation on human subjects,
twins especially, was carried out in the name of the eugenics
program. Anglophone thinkers, such as Galton, were highly
influential when it came to getting people ranked according
to their fitness. How many family members were in some
Temple of Fame? Was your uncle a nut case? Could be
the gene pool. You'll need to be monitored. Welcome to
pseudo-science, not the antithesis of science but it's
inevitable evil twin. Quackery is always but one degree
of separation away.
Now, am I insinuating that there's some necessary or
even contingent association of Anglophone pseudo-
science with the greatest analytic philosopher and one
of the best continental philosophers to boot? Of course
not. On the contrary, I think what the Tractatus accomplishes
is precisely the kicking of the ladder, the pulling out of the
rug from under, those who would appeal to "hard cold
logic" as their ultimate justification for ethical and/or
aesthetic positions.
To say "We were dictated to do this by ultimate truth" is
the ultimate cop out. It's that inauthentic escape from
responsibility the existentialists like to go on (and on)
about. Pure logic offers no final refuge to the self-justifiers,
the rationalizers, when it comes to their ethical state.
You'll need to deal with the state of your soul by some
other means than mere persuasion leading to
convincement, might be the message here.
Sure, a logical person or argument may be highly convincing,
but he's at his or her best when presenting the facts of the
matter. As soon as spin enters in, you will see either mindful
action, or a lot of unconsciousness (unawareness). Does
the presenter assume to much about the context? Ethno-
centrism tends to be a problem for philosophers, which is
why Wittgenstein is such a healthy influence, in his opening
the door to the antidote of ethnography.
We didn't end up doing the Tractatus according to the original
plan, as our group was never swamped with earnest newcomers
eager and ready to "believe". Alex was prepared to go into the
logic, decipher notation. As it turned out, only later Wittgenstein
advocates had much space at the table. The hypothesized
throwback Tractarians, the projected antediluvians never
appeared. We met for several weeks, with lots of show and
tell, other books cycling through [1], as well as invited guests
(two physics professors, one from New Mexico Tech, one from
University of Nebraska, an anthropologist, an herbalist).
Then Alex found a part time work / study position (Global U)
right in that time slot, so we decided to do more restaurants
ala Kiyoshi Kuromiya.[2]
Another approach, between arguing and developing more of
a context within a time line, would be to study the bifurcations,
the lineages. Start with Russell's intro, which helped make the
Tractatus so famous. Follow the diverging of Russell from
Wittgenstein and put together a narrative about what happened
next. There is no dictator to tell you what that narrative might be.
Was all that jazz about logic and a theory of types like a fevered
dream, heralding and foreshadowing the rise of computer
languages as a global phenomenon? Has there ever been a
greater change in the human psyche than that wrought by the
evolution of software? Psychotropic ethnogens might have
at least as great an impact, but "size of impact" is rarely the
interesting question (obsession with "size" can be a sign of
needing therapy). Workaday ordinary language users now
learn to define their own types and create instances of them,
is if Christian Neoplatonists tasked not only with explaining
the mystery of Christ's (re)incarnation on the mortal plane
(or "on the heap" as we call our invisible vista), but of applying
this mystery on the job.
Kirby
Endnotes:
[0] per some ersatz tractatus logico computatus:
>>> time.time
<built-in function time>
>>> time.time()
1306260272.985
>>> help(time.time)
Help on built-in function time in module time:
time(...)
time() -> floating point number
Return the current time in seconds since the Epoch.
Fractions of a second may be present if the system clock provides them.
[1] show and tell books, Dr. Sonnenfeld, Dr. Bob Fuller:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5714210572/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5536721052/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5584181036/
[2] My Dinner with Kiyoshi
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/kiyoshi/
Other related posts:
