[lit-ideas] Re: anti-egalitarianism, more on

  • From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:09:23 +0200

​'form of life' (there) is a technical term from e. spranger
a minor diltheyan. wittgenstein, as usual, makes a bad case for an idiotic
view.
the implication fails in both direction. there are languages that are
imaginable (imagined, c++ and there is no form of anything going on.
contrarywise there are lots of forms of life with no languages at all
(viral e.g.)
certainly one can make the case that wittgensteion used the term in a very
technical way and if so the analogy fails precisely because of the non
sense on stilts of the late hermeneutical junk these people had in mmind​


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  "to imagine a language means is to imagine a form of life." is, in my
> humble opinion, one of those solemn, semi-mystical pronouncements by W.
> that do not stand to critical examination even of a superficial
> sort. Rhododendrons don't have a language, yet are a form of life. On the
> other hand, a mason and his assistant who have a very simplified and
> specialized code of communication consisting of a few expressions like
> 'brick', 'hammer' and the like do not thereby constitute a form of life
> separate from wider human society. (For one thing, their work belongs to,
> and makes sense only within, a wider network of economic relations.)
>
>  O.K.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> >As in Wittgenstein's game of chess, the rules serve to constitute the
>> players and pieces.>
>>
>>   Wittgenstein's "game of chess" is offered as an analogy rather than an
>> explanation; and one of the main points W wishes to make is against the
>> possibility of a fully stated explanation of "rules":- W's view is that
>> what we might accept as a "game of chess" is never said by the "rules" [for
>> no "rule", whether of chess or of mathematics or of "grammar", ever says
>> its own sense] but is something that may be shown - shown, for example, by
>> considering what variations on a standard game of chess we might accept as
>> a compatible with it remaining a "game of chess" and what variations we
>> would not so accept, instead saying that what was happening was no longer a
>> "game of chess". [If a dictator played a "game of chess" with blindfolded
>> humans who were shot when 'taken' in the game, we might say this was really
>> a form of sadistic torture or a cruel exercise in caprice rather than a
>> "game of chess", even if it were played according to the "rules" of a
>> normal "game of chess": the dictator's "game of chess" might not have
>> anything like the same sense or play the same role as a standard "game of
>> chess" within our "form of life".]
>>
>>  Given this, it is going too far to say "the rules serve to constitute
>> the players and pieces" for in many senses they do not, and Wittgenstein is
>> alert to the ways they do not; in particular, they do not "constitute"
>> in that the "rules" do not say exactly what counts as a player or a
>> piece for all purposes and all occasions, rather (in Wittgenstein's view)
>> what we accept as a player and piece etc. shows the "rule".
>>
>>  Dnl
>>  Ldn
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Sunday, 15 June 2014, 14:17, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   its much talk of the subject -- grammatically and policed state
>>
>>  it may be futile blabber
>>
>>  the coming community will be characterized by singularity. and not just
>> any singularity, but any-singularity. singolarita qualunque.
>>
>>  this kind of any-singularity disregards the specificity of singularity.
>> its sole interest is in "unqualified" belonging.
>>
>>  it is NOT established though categories of belonging (being republican,
>> canadian, state-employed, say). it is ALSO NOT established though the
>> absence of such conditions (this is the case with the kind of "negative
>> community" suggested by georges bataille and maurice blanchot [and
>> HEGEL???] -- the community of those without community)
>>
>>  the child at play, the vagabond, the franciscan monk signify forms of
>> life  NOT based on group belonging, NOT based on class, NOT based on
>> rights. they share an approach to life characterized by practice and an
>> ethic of openness. can we describe their life forms without recourse to
>> metaphysical categories (such as subjectivity, rights, class projects)?
>>
>>  the franciscan monk abandoned all claims to property, to rights, and so
>> challenged sacred and political authority. "how can we imagine a form of
>> life, a human life, entirely exempted from the clutches of the law; and how
>> can we imagine a USE OF THE BODY and the world that never materializes AS
>> POSESSION?"
>>
>>  Saint Francis of Assisi insised that the example of the Master should
>> be sufficient and that He alone should serve as guide. It is a claim to a
>> way of life, NOT a doctrine. A life in poverty -- absolute poverty. In
>> stead of property and rights the Franciscans lived by "free use": in
>> accordance with natural law they would freely consume food, drink, wear
>> clothes without ownership. (In the manner of the Master who may not have
>> had ownership of the robe He wore.)
>>
>>  What has this to do with Wittgenstein? What the Fanciscans did was to
>> establish a third element between law (rule, universality) and life
>> (application, particularity), and this is USE (usus) -- practice. As in
>> Wittgenstein's game of chess, the rules serve to constitute the players and
>> pieces. The rules that establish the space of possibilities come about
>> through common practice -- use. Language games are parts of life forms: "to
>> imagine a language means to imagine a form of life."
>>
>>  Mvh / Yours,
>>
>>
>>  Torgeir Fjeld
>> Gdansk, Poland
>>
>>
>>  Blogs: http://phatic.blogspot.com // http://norsketegn.blogspot.com
>> Web: http://independent.academia.edu/TorgeirFjeld
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
palma,  e TheKwini, KZN












 palma

cell phone is 0762362391




 *only when in Europe*:

inst. J. Nicod

29 rue d'Ulm

f-75005 paris france

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2014