[Wittrs] Re: The language game of html, again.
- From: "SWM" <swmirsky@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:26:33 -0000
Perhaps, Sean, you're reading too much into the choice of arrows ( < > ) rather
than square brackets ( [ ] ) to differentiate the level of operation in a
linguistic expression from an initial aside conventionally indicated by
parentheses?
But, even assuming you aren't and that there is some real technical concern for
us when trying to decide whether to choose a "[" rather than a "<" to separate
a thought within the bracketed portion of a sentence as indicated by a "(", how
does this represent a problem worth troubling Wittgenstein's ghost over?
As I recollect, Wittgenstein applied his thinking and insights to unpacking
problems that philosophers were prone to wrestle with in order to bring us to
the point of seeing that what had looked like a problem crying out for a
solution from philosophers was, in fact, more like a puzzle waiting to be
solved in the way puzzles are solved, i.e., by showing the trick and thereby
dissolving our puzzlement, the confusion inspired in us by the initial apparent
difficulty.
Aside from some interesting issues surrounding how we represent various levels
of operation in our thought processes (from one level of expressed language to
various underlying levels to, as you are suggesting, something that may, in
fact, be pre-linquistic or extra linguistic), there doesn't appear to be much
to worry philosophers here.
Would Wittgenstein, reborn today, have really concerned himself with such
operational problems insofar as they did not touch on the kinds of logical and
metaphysical problems that have tended to trouble philosophers over the
centuries? I'm afraid I don't see that at all.
SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>
> ... here it is again. Take a look at this. I saw someone post this to a
> website:
>
> "If you're going to make fun of economics, at least do it intelligently. (And
> yes, I know where I'm posting <sigh>.)"
>
> Note how interesting the use of the computer markup is for an internal sort
> of
> expression: "<sigh>." Why not use the parenthesis (sigh)? It's probably not
> because they were already in use -- it's not an order of operations thing.
> Brackets or something would have better facilitated that. Rather, it is
> something that seeing markup code does to the brain. We're so used to seeing
> text, and, behind it, there is some sort of processing language. And so the
> person than introduces a play in the language game that uses the new notation
> to
> signify a process happening "underneath" the surface level markings.
>
> I just think it is both brilliant and revealing of everything
> Wittgensteinian.
> If Wittgenstein were alive today and would see the inauguration of these
> sorts
> of moves in language culture, he would surely take note of them. As he did,
> e.g., the idea of what the thought bubble "said" in comic books as opposed to
> the "direct bubble" (or whatever that is called).
>
> I want to suggest quite clearly that there is more of philosophic
> significance
> revealed in this sort of thing than in a thousand years of disputation about
> "free will." Why do today's philosophers talk about nothing?
>
> Regards and thanks.
>
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
> Assistant Professor
> Wright State University
> Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
> SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
> Wittgenstein Discussion: http://seanwilson.org/wiki/doku.php?id=wittrs
>
Other related posts:
