[Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein's meaning is use.
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:44:30 -0700
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:08 PM, BruceD <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> wrote:
>
>> The notion that "meaning is use" conveys Wittgenstein's position that
> there is NOTHING HIDDEN from view.
>> Words do not "express meanings," whether meanings are said to be in
> the mind OR the brain.
>
> That sounds right as a reading of LW. "Meaning" isn't anything off
> stage, hidden as it were, waiting for some vehicle to be brought into
> view.
>
That's true. On the other hand it's not something "in your face"
that's completely obvious, i.e. he does suggest we have to dig, to
investigate, to spin our wheels (not unproductively for a change).
The nominalist, naive and simple, thinks some flash of experience is
"the meaning" of whatever, whereas the Wittgensteinian studies the
intricate interplay of phenomena and other phenomena.
It's not a machine that conceals its inner workings (nothing hidden),
yet nor is it simple (it takes time, nay patience, to study the
machinery), nor is it really a machine (unless you want to *make* it
be one, a move in some grammar).
> But what about the "tip of the tongue" experience, which, of course, is
> there always in some micro form as we find ourselves rejecting a word or
> unhappy with word choice? Something is hidden for the speaker, at that
> point. What would LW say?
>
> bruce
>
The grammar of concealment is vast and elaborate, includes what people
call "hidden meanings" which may be no more than parallel
interpretations or divergent readings of the same text. With regard
to some ancient writings, especially the so-called "sacred" ones, it's
oft encouraged, nay demanded, the "secret meanings" be milked from
them. The word "secondary" is often used, i.e. there's the "main
meaning" and then there's the "second meaning".
Words like "occult" and "encrypt" get in on the action. Where you
have locks, you also have keys. Where you have puzzles, you have
solutions.
I think a hallmark of any grammar of secrecy is intentionality i.e.
someone deliberately hid something.
On the other hand, the grammar of "hidden" is more general and
includes discovering new aspects of things that were not deliberately
concealed by humans, yet were not immediately apparent to our
ancestors for example. We might say "nature's secrets" to blur the
distinction, by giving some level of intentionality to nature (nature
as agency -- not a new idea).
The morphology of the virus, to take one example. In Plato's time,
they had the icosahedron, but no way of associated it with the protein
sheath inside of which DNA-RNA coils are kept safe from the outer
environment. We could say this knowledge was hidden from Plato but if
we said it was "kept secret" that sounds kinda weird i.e. by whom?
ETs? Gimme a break, right?
Kirby
>
> 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
>
>
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
Other related posts:
