[Wittrs] Re: My Chinese Encyclopedia: The Red Chicken Footnote
- From: "College Dropout John O'Connor" <sixminuteabs@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:21:03 -0400
> I wrote:
> > As for the whole story description, consider that we have a base 10 number
> > system, but ten numbers is not the whole story. Thus, from whence does your
> > description come from?
> >
>
> You wrote:
> An understanding that something has been left out when an ellipse is employed
> in this way. And that is to recognize its notational role.
>
> I write:
> Nothing is left out! Read the quote from Zettel again. This is the confusion
> of philosophers; all this superfluous nonsense adds nothing.
>
You wrote:
I'm glad you take Wittgenstein to heart so much. Look, what is left out are the
further numbers you could list but don't, using the three dots instead to
indicate you could go on and on and on, i.e., that the sequence you are
referencing is open ended!
What is left out? In your sequence the numbers that come after. Could they ever
be definitively and completely listed? No, because that is not in keeping with
the game in which these numbers are deployed in this way.
I write:
So how can something be left out if this something can never be included? If I
can never count to infinity, then it obviously makes no sense to speak of
infinity as a number. If the endlessness of numbers is contained by them, then
there is nothing more to be said. And the same goes for specific instances
such as the number sequences we have covered, the ellipse and some of its
applications, etc.
> I write:
> You definitions are not definitive? Is this not a contradiction? It is
> nonsense.
You wrote:
Who says definitions must be definitive by dint of their being "definitions"?
Aren't you just being misled by the obvious similarity and common eytemology of
the two words? Isn't it more nonsensical (in the sense of confusing common
linguistic heritage or sounds with common meaning) to suggest, as you do, that
to be a definition implies definitiveness? Haven't you considered the
possibility of erroneous definitions, or those that are inadequately stated, or
those that are incomplete (as in the open ended nature of the number sequence
you give us above)?
What kind of nonsense would it be? I suspect #2 would be the proper category,
to make a mistake which is so obvious it ought to have been avoided.
I write:
What? Erroneous definitions? Incomplete definitions? I surely couldn't call
them definitions. And yes, I think etymology is quite important. But I think
this little squabble has gone far off the railings.
I wrote:
> I was not the one arguing that nonsense breaks rules, you were. Nonsense is
> perfectly legitimate. We simply must be aware when we are speaking it.
You wrote:
I was not arguing for it in any formal sense but offering a way of
understanding what we sometimes mean by "nonsense" (see my previously provided
list of five types of nonsense).
Well, this has turned out rather badly I think. At least we tried to
communicate. Maybe you will have better luck yourself with other interlocutors
on this list.
And why do you persist in ending your remarks with the phrase "He lived a
wonderful life"? Most of us here will know that a variant of that statement was
among Wittgenstein's final dying words but why repeat it as if it were some
kind of mantra? Is this intended to tell us something or is it merely meant as
a kind of important "nonsense"? If so, what kind?
So much of Wittgenstein lends itself to such a wide range of personal
interpretations that it becomes possible to commandeer the man for a great
variety of positions. But is that valid?
I write:
Was it so bad? I have had much worse. This would be our second take; and
while we did get derailed on some simple questions, I think it was quite
fruitful. It is the simple things that are the heart of the matter. We might
do good browsing books together, or reviewing movies, etc. Who knows? ("Who
knows?" is nonsense)
And, yes, I realized that the line should read "He had a wonderful life"; My
mistake. It is my signature and so automatically ties itself to all of my
posts.
As to why I say it? He said, Tell them I had a wonderful life. So I say, He
had a wonderful life.
As for the wide range of interpretations... I think that is becoming an
important issue in our dialog, so I will respond therein.
Nonsense and Stuff,
John O
--
He lived a wonderful life.
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
