[C] [Wittrs] Wittgenstein in a Tetrahedron
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:24:42 -0800
My quirky title, "Wittgenstein in a Tetrahedron" relates to recent posts
sewn on this list.
The "tetrahedron" whereof I speak is simply a network (or graph) of four
characters: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Donald Coxeter, Bucky Fuller and myself
(Kirby Urner).
Of course it seems highly arrogant of me to connect myself as a dot to this
august triangle, as if to imply I'm a part of some inner circle
meritocracy. That's not my intent. My role is as an observer or
commentator, the astronomer looking at a 3-star constellation.
I'm preferring to explicitly include myself as an observer, verus pretending
to some "objective voice of history". I'm more a "new journalism" fan,
and/or fan of Kierkegaard's 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript'.
Put another way: the subjective viewpoint should be acknowledged, not get
away with disguising itself as some "overvoice" that narrates a documentary
as some "voice of god" "giant corporation" "party" or "central committee"
(to cite my "music of authority" investigation, not unlike Nietzsche's "will
to power" investigation).
<lore>
I was recently quoting to this list from the Siobhan Roberts bio of Donald
Coxeter (title: The King of Infinite Space). Donald Coxeter was one of the
privileged few who got to be in on the Blue Book experience. The group
actually used his chambers, even after he dropped out.
Philosophy was not really his bag. He went on to become the premier
geometer of the 20th century.
So that's some of the *Coxeter-Wittgenstein* edge of the triangle.
//www.freelists.org/post/wittrsamr/re-Blue-Book-student-Coxeter-other-overlaps
Aspects of the *Coxeter-Fuller* relationship likewise chronicled in the
Roberts book, plus I've seen some of the primary materials.
In my view, Fuller was less a geometer than a philosopher, and Coxeter's
impatience with Fuller's overblown language and opinion of himself (as
Coxeter saw it) was not all that different, in kind, from his impatience
with Wittgenstein's contribution (which is not to conflate Wittgenstein's
philo with Fuller's of course).
*Fuller-Wittgenstein*: this is a weak link until I come along and make the
connection. E.J. Applewhite, Fuller's chief collaborator on the Synergetics
magnum opus said he liked the link, while leaving it up to me to pioneer
it.
I'm tempted to interject some long essay at this juncture, but to be brief:
Fuller is somewhat "post linguistic turn" in his awareness of language as a
tool, and he deliberately invents his own language within which to spin his
meanings (not that he's the only philosopher to try this -- one could argue
that's one of the hallarks of being a philosopher (but then would Freud or
BF Skinner qualify as philosphers then, as inventors of "new ways of
talking"?)).
To what extent is a philosophy able to weave its own internal logic and/or
grammar?
The TLP and PI are both implicitly answers to that question, as both have
their own cohesiveness at the risk of imploding to become private languages
(yet avoid this fate).
Per earlier dialog with JPDeMouy, I've been trying to make "tetrahedral
mensuration" more philosophically acceptable to math teachers. One of
Fuller's chief discoveries, and a hallmark of his philosophy, is how easy
mnemonics might be developed if starting with a regular tetrahedron as
volumetric unity.
Yet do we dare erect this tent in a Euclidean context? What rules are we
breaking? Are there axioms at stake? These are somewhat foundational
issues, taking us to Wittgenstein's Remarks on the Foundations of
Mathematics as a pontential resource (more substance for the
Fuller-Wittgenstein edge).
//www.freelists.org/post/wittrsamr/help-the-math-teachers,1
Back to me and my role as commentator: having studied Fuller's philosophy
more than most, I found myself growing impatient with the Wikipedia entry on
Fuller's Synergetics. Not even the basics of the philosophy were being
shared.
Would some university philosophy department come to the rescue? Of course
not, as we all know that Synergetics is not assigned reading in any
university philosophy department. There's no army of grad students out
there wanting to shore up a Wikipedia entry on anything so currently obscure
and esoteric.
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/fieser.html
You will note that I make no mention of Wittgenstein on this Wikipedia page,
which is of course completely appropriate. That's all in my own head
(notwithstanding the facts of the matter). However, I consider this list an
appropriate place to archive some of my considerations regarding the lay of
the land. I'm seeing a triangle and writing about it, hoping others might
want to add their own gloss (why should I have all the fun?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics_(Fuller)
Tetrahedral mensuration is admittedly off beat, but it's not so kooky as
some may suppose. Nor is Fuller's language as opaque as some would make
out. We're talking about some alien language games is all, internally
consistent enough to be considered rule-following. Or not?
Understanding means following some of the same rules oneself. But at what
price?
Does coming to understand X mean abandoning one's understanding of Y? When
it comes to mathematics, many axioms and definitions are feasible. Many
sandcastles share the same beach. Not every combination of ideologies is
non-volatile however. Following one set of rules may mean breaking others.
Perhaps we should have more discussion of expressions of understanding
</lore>
Kirby
Other related posts:
- » [C] [Wittrs] Wittgenstein in a Tetrahedron - kirby urner
