[lit-ideas] the scarface II

  • From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:13:01 +0200

** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 5/20/2012 (Sunday) **

two keys in one sentence established the firm need for psychiatric help
on the matter. it was indeed shown the next day that this McCoy is a
joke, as in the "real Mc Coy"
 
examples sent to doctors
 
 
 
 
 
 
This key point partly follows from the ‘key tenet’ that the sense of
‘what is said’ is never said in ‘what is said’, the sense of ‘what is
said’ can only be shown.

>>> Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> 19/05/2012 06:54 PM >>>


From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
>This is all very well and good, sir. Yet you have left one question
unanswered: Who is the boss of Bas van Fraassen?>

More than one question has been left unanswered. But the one above may
be left aside.

Even my correction of my post failed to be correct enough: 

Where I had written as a footnote:

>This key point partly follows from the ‘key tenet’ that the sense of
‘what is said’ is never said in ‘what is said’, the sense of ‘what is
said’ can only be shown. It also partly follows from the TLP’s
positivistic view that only the propositions of “natural science” have
sense. Thus this key point is a conclusion arising from an amalgam of
the ‘key tenet’ and of the TLP’s positivistic ‘doctrine of sense and
nonsense’. By the time of PI, W had abandoned the TLP’s ‘doctrine of
sense and nonsense’ though he retained the ‘key tenet’: and therefore he
was not bound to the view that what he shows in PI is “senseless”. In
the TLP, W was bound to the view that what his propositions show is
“senseless” even though it is “the truth”: hence ‘6.54’.>

The last sentence was subsequently corrected but the one before needs
correction also: so that together they should read:

By the time of PI, W had abandoned the TLP’s ‘criterion of sense and
nonsense’ though he retained the ‘key tenet’: and therefore he was not
bound to the view that what he says in PI is “senseless”, even if the
importance of what W says in PI continues to lie in what it shows. In
the TLP, W was bound to the view that what his propositions say is
“senseless” even though they show “the truth”: hence ‘6.54’."

Donal
Who doesn't always say what would show correct understanding of the
say/show distinction




Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] the scarface II - Adriano Palma