Reply to Sean I cannot bring myself to go along with your account of Wittgenstein here, when you say that the thing to remember is that Wittgenstein is against a contrived inner/outer distinction and that W doesn't wantyou to talk with too much inner as much as he does not you to talk with too much
outer. To me Wittgenstein is much more than being about proscriptions, even thought he does say many such things, he is about showing us via his mode of operation what the prescription is for our entrenchment in outrageously in adequate tacit presuppositions. To be truly against an "inner/outer " distinction, it is not enough to simply lobby for more or less of one or the other. To be against such a nonsensical distinction, one must realize the nonsense for what it is...to take some action.....and that is to learn to speak in a way that surpasses it and its obstacles. To limit W to admonitions about "too much" or "too little" does not do him justice, I'm afraid. Happily rattling around inside a cage is not enough to make us free even though we are free to rattle around. What does Wittgenstein want from us? To truly reject the "inner/ outer". To truly reject the nonsense ingredient in the notions of "experience", which I am astonished to still hear being bandied about as if the word refers to anything. I thought we were done with that seventeenth century mythology. Of course, experience is what gets into our"inner" from the "outer" isn't it. or it's how the "outer" is presented to the "inner" and blah, blah, blah. How sad. How pathetically sad to embark so much earnest and valiant discussion based on such utter balderdash. Where can such a journey take us but to endless sputtering. I believe that to learn the lesson of Wittgenstein we must learn to speak freely, free of the chains of nonsense which he has helped to show us and by doing so ourselves continue to purge our speaking of further nonsense such as that of the notion of "experience"or 'thought" or 'behavior" to name just a few forms of such nonsense. When we haven't got a frakking clue as to what we are talking about when we employ those terms as foundation for our blah, blah as we debate different sides of the blah, blah with each other through eternity perhaps , anymore than folks haven't had a clue for the past few hundreds years. How can we do justice to Wittgenstein. Perhaps it's the aphorism about he Zen Master who comes up behind his disciple and tells him not to turn around and informs that he is holding an egg over his disciple's head. And that if he agrees that he is holding the egg over his head, the Master will smash the egg on top of the disciple's head. And that if he denies that he is holding the egg over his head, the Master will smash the egg on top of the disciple's head. And that if he says nothing, the Master will smash the egg on top of the student's head. Those of you who have heard the end of this story will know what we must do in order to do what Master Wittgenstein wants to do to profit and learn from his work. And you know that either while the passivity of "doing nothing" is not enough, either "accepting or denying" is merely passivity of another kind and also not nearly enough. And for those of you who don't know the end of the story, sorry, but I can't resist withholding the disciple's optimal response for now. . WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009