[lit-ideas] Re: On linguistic and genetic uncertainty
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 23:34:40 +0200
I don't see what there is about the say-distinction that cannot be said but
only shown. "Statements say and pictures show" is a statement, not a
picture. It is not something unsayable in our language either, instead it
is a platitude. Now, is true that pictures can also 'say' in a way, and
statements can also 'show', in a way. But I cannot see statements that
'show but do not say', any more than I can understand pictures that 'say
but do not show.' I conclude that Wittgenstein had a few too much to drink
when he wrote that, and Donal had a few much too much when he paraphrased
it.
O.K.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> (According to the most cogent reading of the Tractatus) every proposition
> in the Tractatus is an example of statements, or pseudo-statements if you
> will, that show the truth but say nothing with sense (as only the
> propositions of the natural sciences say anything with sense, and the
> propositions of the Tractatus are not propositions of the natural
> sciences).
>
> In Investigations the various remarks about how "sense" is taught [how we
> learn names, how we learn the sequence of natural numbers, how we learn the
> sense of "Take n and continue to add 2" etc.] are part of showing how
> "sense" is shown - rather than said.
>
> As to how we would further explicate the distinction, I think we must take
> seriously that the say/shown distinction is a distinction that can at best
> be shown - we cannot capture it in language so that we reach a point where
> we may conclude "There we have said, in a way that captures it in
> language, what constitutes the distinction between saying and showing."
> Wittgenstein did not believes such a point could ever be reached. In both
> the earlier and later philosophy, his view is that the saying/showing
> distinction may only be shown.
>
> Dnl
> Apologies if this belongs in another thread
> Ldn
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 19:41, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> i.e yourself, sorry I was being distracted. Will there be examples of
> statements that "show but do not say" ? Please note that the request is
> somewhat more specific that asking for examples of say/show distinction.
> (Which I understand as well as the guy next door.)
>
> O.K.
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> I was thinking more of some persons whom I met when I was teaching in
> China, but if you recognized itself there... I guess it is all right. :)
>
> O:K.
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>
> >the Scotch were subsumed under the Irish ? Judging by stubbornness, they
> appear to be fairly similar.>
>
> What's stubborn about not budging an inch when you're in the right?
> (Stubbornness is better exemplified by continuing to ask for clarification
> of W's say/show distinction when in the wrong threads.)
>
> Donal
> Scotch-Irish (probably)
> Ldn
> On Wednesday, 7 May 2014, 12:29, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
> dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 5/6/2014 10:03:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> I am not too sure what the original complaint was, that the Scotch were
> subsumed under the Irish?
>
> The original wording by Helm went:
>
> "In the Ancestry.com definitions, one can find British (which I find in
> my
> genealogic tree) under Western Europe and Scottish (also in my genealogic
> tree) under Irish. And that ambiguity can be found in recent studies
> such
> as Oppenheimer’s; so perhaps the Ancestry people are updating results as
> new
> arguments are advanced. There is no consensus on the reasons for the
> difference between the Scots and the Irish, for example, or whether they
> originally came from central Europe as many have believed or through
> Southern
> France and Spain as Oppenheimer and later scholars now believe."
>
> My quotations were from Oppenheimer's link in the Oppenheimer entry in
> Wikipedia: a forum for the discussion of what I think is entitled the
> 'myth'
> of British ancestry. Anyhow, Helm's wording are interesting, and they
> reminded me of a glorious, to my mind, passage in a 'comical history of
> England'
> that I often quote, '1066 and all that' where things that happened are
> distinguished as being "a good thing" or a "bad thing" in terms of their
> consequences. Their authors are "MA (Oxon) (failed)" and they write:
>
> A section that does not quite refer to the Scots and Picts at all,
> entitled,
>
> "Culture among the Ancient Britons",
>
> relates to Oppenheimer's argument. Sellar and Yeatman write:
>
> "The Ancient Britons were by no means savages
> before the Conquest, and had already made great
> strides in civilization, e.g. they buried each other in
> long round wheelbarrows (agriculture) and burnt
> each other alive (religion) under the guidance
> of even older Britons called Druids or
> Eisteddfods, who worshipped the Middletoe
> in the famous Druidical churchyard at Stoke Penge."
>
> There is an ERRATUM, "For Middletoe read Mistletoe."
>
> ---- The Scots/Picts passage goes after the mention of the end of the
> "Provincia Romana" and "Roman occupation" (nicely illustrated by a Roman
> immersed in a bath, and thus punning on the 'alleged' ambiguity of
> 'occupy' --
> "they did little but have baths, these Romans -- that was what they
> occupied
> their time in" -- being the implicature)
>
> Sellar and Yeatman write:
>
> "The withdrawal of the Roman legions to take part in Gibbon's Decline and
> Fall of the Roman Empire (due to a clamour among the Romans for pompous
> amusements such as bread and circumstances) left Britain defenceless and
> subjected Europe to that long succession of Waves of which History is
> chiefly
> composed."
>
> "While the Roman Empire was overrun by waves not only of Ostrogoths,
> Vizigoths, and even Goths, but also of Vandals (who destroyed works of
> art) and
> Huns (who destroyed everything and everybody, including Goths,
> Ostrogoths,
> Vizigoths, and even Vandals), Britain was attacked by waves of Picts (and,
> of course, Scots) who had recently learnt how to climb the wall, and of
> Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who, landing at Thanet, soon overran the
> country with
> fire (and, of course, the sword)."
>
> And here is their
>
> "Important Note"
>
> "The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time
> inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while
> the
> Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice
> versa. It
> is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa)."
>
> The history is intended as parodical so it may do to revise the
> implicatures alla Grice:
>
> i. The Socts were originally Irish.
>
> ii. The Scots were originally Irish but were by NOW Scotch.
>
> iii. The Scots had become Scotch.
>
> iv. The Scots (or Scotch), while originally Irish, were no longer so.
> (Oppenheimer would disagree: Once Irish, all ways Irish).
>
> v. The Scots were inhabiting Ireland.
>
> Implicature:
>
> vi. No wonder they were originally Irish.
>
> v. Irish is whoever inhabits Ireland. (analytic).
>
> vi. The Scots had driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland.
>
> Entailment:
>
> vii. The Irish were Picts.
>
> . Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the
> Picts
> (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It
> is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa)."
>
> viii. The Pics (originally Socts) were now Irish.
>
> Here there is the symmetry:
>
> ix. The Scots were originally Irish; the Picts were originally Scots.
>
> By transitivity:
>
> x. The Picts were originally Irish.
>
> Here there is a contradictory implicature (or entailment), big enough to
> be
> present in a serious student of the passage:
>
> xi. If the Picts were originally Irish, how come they were NOW Irish.
> Implicature: they ALL WAYS were!
>
> xii. "Living in brackets" possibly triggers the wrong implicature.
>
> xiii. The Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets)
> and
> vice versa.
>
> The 'implicature' of entailment of 'and vice versa' here seems odd to
> formulate explicitly:
>
> xiv. The Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and
> vice versa. To wit: the Irish (living in brackets) were now Picts
> (originally Scots).
>
> No wonder Oppenheimer's book brought further controversy to an already
> controversial topic!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
