Re: [Wittrs] Wittrs and Partially Examined Life

kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 24 May 2012 20:01:08 -0700

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Take a look at this at the Partially Examined Life (philosophy podcast and 
> blog):
>
> http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/05/24/sean-wilsons-wittgenstein-forum/
>

I listened to the first tape on Investigations today.

Pretty good on how denotative models, ala Tractatus, have fallen by
the wayside; no one believes them anymore.

As to whether Wittgenstein is best thought of as an Analytic or
Continental philosopher, it's just assumed Analytic but without much
explanation.

Yes, he was briefly the darling of the Positivists, but if that has
come undone, than how far has the alliance with Analytic philosophy
come undone as well?

Not really discussed, except towards the end we're talking about
bridging to Heidegger.

Kant is cast is a dividing point, i.e. if you write badly, following
him, you can still claim to be of either type (joke).

They (the radio personalities) spend a lot of time on the idea that on
of the interlocutors has credentials, is entitled to speak, but shall
remain anonymous, in large part for the purpose of infusing philosophy
with a lot of "dirty words" -- a style not seen in the more academic
brands.

The reasoning is likely vitalist, i.e. philosophy is dying on the vine
and cussing brings new wine (and new listeners) to the table.

I lot of listeners won't have the associations with "bro-grammer" and
so "philosopher bro" won't resonante with the same pop culture vibes.
That's Continental right there, to assume a lot of context and
culture.  Anglo analytics tend to "spell it all out" whereas
Continentals say "you had to be there" (but then tell you anyway).

That might be a right step, to add more vernacular, more invective,
but I think Dr. Ruth (another radio personality) already took it a lot
further.

"Have your examples of language games be more R rated and you might be
on a faster track to more listeners of the kind a kind you want."  I
understand that advice.

Then they keep coming back to the same game (the opening gambit) with
the slabs, pillars, columns and so forth.  They start *doing*
Investigations.

One of the interlocutors argues for a kind of interiority building up
in the slab fetcher, suggesting dawning comprehension, proto
awareness, and therefore the glimmerings of consciousness that we
cannot help but find meaningful.

The Investigations itself has passages regarding when we experience
enlightenment, say we've been illuminated, now suddenly comprehend.

That's an aspect shift for one personally maybe, a flooding in of self
confidence as one says "now I can go on".  But can one?  It's part of
the grammar of "understanding" that you're not your own judge.  You
may have a good track record, lots of leeway, but it still at least
makes sense for a stranger to adopt a "prove it" mentality and not
take your word for it.

They keep talking about being able to follow the action (rules, game)
without being able to use the words oneself, at least not with
proficiency, so isn't there some interiority in being able to "follow
along?"  Like you're watching Spanish TV and this woman walks in on a
couple making love and says something.  Don't we get it?  We
understand, but are we using?  "Passive understanding" is what's at
issue.

Since we assumed a somewhat Catholic culture where monogamy is
practiced or given lip service, we do not spontaneously assume she's
saying "Excuse me I'll come back later" or "Hold on a sec, I'll join
you".  No, the context is shock and soap opera and the discovery of
"infidelidad" (it helps that Spanish has so many English cognates).

But we might imagine a soap opera that builds up our expectations, to
where we *think* we understand, but then it keeps staying out of
reach.  Many stories have components of that nature i.e. we may be
clear on the foreground characters and what they're thinking, but
others stay murky and incomplete in our models, or we don't really get
the back story.

It's fascinating to here these Anglo speakers go to "in his head"
regarding comprehension (on the part of the slab slob).  No "corazon",
know "knowing in his heart" because Anglos "know" that "knowing is a
brain function" and so go right to the head every time -- for really
anything nowadays ("It's all in your head" -- with stress on *all* --
is a common English idiom).

"I understand 'slab' in my brain" or "my brain understands slab" are
not said, but are close to the surface ("in his brain" is mentioned),
testament to the rules that have grown up around "brain talk" -- a hot
bed of elaboration these days.

That we posit some kind of glimmering / intuitive understanding in the
brain of the slab guy is testament to:

(a) the compelling grammar of containership, are "growing knowledge"
has to be "in" something, because everything noun-like is
container-like in the brain and

(b) the holdover belief / superstition that "understanding" is some
kind of continuous biological process, even though we have no idea
what it is (it MUST be there -- the signature of bewitchment).

Anyway, good radio for helping us delve into some deep thoughts
(grammar is deep).

Exploring usage patterns around words like "understanding", as adults,
using cuss words, could easily carry us into more diplomacy, more
investigations of what we mean, how we mean it, and where we overlap
or don't.  It's encouraging to hear adults analyze together in this
way.

*    *    *

Much of the rest of my day was wearing AFSC hat, doing some summary
writing about projects and setting some foci.  Like Okinawa of all
places.

Also, getting back to *my* broadcasts (vs. these other guys), I
remembered after reading it why Alex didn't much like that article in
Ms. about his mom (winter issue -- she's on the cover).

But there's still reason to like the issue, as it's all about the
women of Facebook (no, not with a centerfold, not like that).

You may remember when I was writing that faux mini-series for BBC,
that the screenplay features a woman engineer having flashbacks,
similar to the movie Titanic wherein the current swear word world of
engineer-pirates looks back at the more classist / racist tea-cuppy
Victorians who went down or survived.

Don't they talk about Freud in Titanic (talking about the movie)?
That was Wittgenstein's Vienna in some ways, intellectual and out of
touch with below decks realities.

Karl Wittgenstein would have been at the captain's table, 1% for sure.
 Her name was Whitney, worked for Facebook.  Reincarnation?  We don't
nail down the metaphysics -- part of the charm -- just make it spooky
(with a few Cornish language games adding spin).

I don't know Sean's policy's re swear words in his archive.  I've been
sparing in my blogs, but not cuz I'm teacuppy.  I go pretty deeply
into the anthropology of Drapes versus Squares (identifying with the
former) and the movies I review are not for the squeamish, some of
them.

No reason we can't do philosophy and "talk like a pirate" at the same time.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org

Re: [Wittrs] Wittrs and Partially Examined Life

Other related posts: