 |
|
|
|
The limits of My language mean the limits of My world wittgenstein and limits of language / Summary: Philosophical Investigations in a nutshell wittgenstein lenguaje / wittgenstein langue / wittgenstein linguaggio / wittgenstein lingua / wittgenstein Sprache 
In the specialization 'language' Ludwig Wittgenstein might very well have been
slightly more advanced than Friedrich Nietzsche. Two 23 carat diamonds, with common people being sand crystals. Not that different, but in result amazingly differing. The young Austrian student Ludwig Wittgenstein realized that grammars of 'words' easily ends in a VERY addictive 'Kingdom of Heaven' (virtual world of 'ideal language' and 'scientific rules' = Language Mazes), and that ONLY use of an evolutionary proven logic (common sense) provides a way out. Language, when used without sense, easily forgets about the sensations behind the sounds. Wittgenstein obviously was mathematically properly trained by Bertrand Russell. In his Investigations though he leaves Russell's 'Logical Atomism' and shows that language (grammar of words) is complex cultural puzzling in personal fantasies (sets of pairs (label, mood). Wittgenstein: The basic evil of Russell's logic, as also of mine in the Tractatus, is that what a proposition is is illustrated by a few commonplace examples, and then pre-supposed as understood in full generality. (Philosophy of Psychology, Volume I) Ludwig Wittgenstein realized that logics are either inherent of the studied system (like common sense of 'human life'), or are non-sense (dualism of logic-system, creationism). Amongst others that implicates that either as part of The One you puzzle=meditate about The One, or you're a fundamentalist who pretends to be on the side of 'god from space' and to be looking 'objectively' at your created Natural Laws (rules). Fighting rule-breakers of your selfmade 'natural laws' with Wars on Terrorism. Common Sense is earth evolution archived (based on unity) and can only accomplish 'balancing', and takes training to be grasped. The Western 'understanding' is based on the arrogant dual view 'humanism (we the humans, and life on earth). Ultimately ending in arrogancy like: WE have to save earth. NO let's hope evolution 'finds' a way out, without having to destroy Western human life. 'Understanding' presumes that virtual 'rational' logic is natural law (creationism), that 'rational info ( financial, administrative, statistical, technical) is the 'lifeblood' of the modern world. 
 Clarity 
Seeing the spark of verbal communication as tuning of word-maze behavior (a mix of trial and error, chance and hard work) is amazingly correct, and also Wittgenstein's puzzle.
Wittgenstein sees language as cultural tool. That means that rational language has no words for behavior that is not recognized (irrational).How to tune 2 different sense-behaviors (with behavior not even 'seen' in 1 of 2 cultures) if tuning already supposes grasping of BOTH practices of handling reality That takes even more than 'understanding', the ability of by intuition realizing that 2 processes are (partly) simular. I.e. being able to stay respectful and make a discrete jump in knowledge space, by taking calculated risk. Wittgenstein's sense did not trie to find 'the truth' of philosophical statements. Instead Wittgenstein tried to integrate the behavior inherent in such statements in his refreshed common sense. 
For Ludwig Wittgenstein philosophy should aim at defeating word-mazes
and not at making a stay in some word-maze 'logical'.Like sensing snakes, tigers, terrorists and nazis as complex puzzles. A tiny Paradigm Shift. I grasp though that Wittgenstein saw striking similarity between language as BEHAVIOR and mathematical 'fractal engines'. I realized that though the basic workings of fractal engines are simple, unravelling a fractal engine back to basics is sheer impossible. I can never copy Wittgenstein's behavior, but we share the intuition of the process 'crystallizing'. 
Because Ludwig Wittgenstein describes language as 'freezing' fluid,
simple crystals resulting in 'seconds' in awsome complexity.
The basic 'stones' of language remain mystery.
The developing brain-movie resembles a fluid glacifying. That happens so swiftly that you can't fully
describe it. Ice crystals are brilliants, and result in shining icefloors.But IF the initiating crystals are polluted with mud (still very complex) then the outcome is unpredictable, and might be 'fascist' concrete. Western thinking since Aristotle is polluted with mud. 'Rational Thought' produces complex language-crystals that create dead capitalist 'good' deserts, that eat all the 'evil' creative fertile forests. Language Crystals 
Ice is used to skate on, but our brain in structure resembles water glacifying.
That result in icefloors built of fluid crystals. Mostly with particles of mud, but very seldom fluid brilliants.
The funny thing though is that mud crystals (sand) are as complex as diamonds.
Aging is changing from state mud into sand.It takes prophets like Buddha or Jesus to purify muddy language into crystal clear language. I realized this after starting to summarize the Philosophical Investigations of the elder Wittgenstein. I didn't do that earlier because finding a freeware version on Internet was amazingly difficult (freedom of information?). But using some triqs I finally succeeded. An English version was sufficient because the elder Wittgenstein is a fine teacher, an as part of a crystal of thought his aphorisms are very basic. His examples are perfect though, my summary only adds a welcome helicopter view. Nutshells in a nutshell: - languages are conceptual schemes that represent cultural relativism (examples: Western music, African music, Muslim music, or when fully abstract math) - behind rational language hides the following arrogant scheme: cut and paste the rational part of reality and IMAGINE that this covers ALL of reality Quote Giambattisto Vico (1668-1744): [...] .languages: words are carried over from bodies and from the properties of bodies to express the things of the mind and spirit.(Henkt, languages express logical manipulating with sense experience) Zarah2nd, February 3 2005 Aphorism 1-10 about Meaning Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 1. Every word has a meaning. Learning association from parents.  The meaning is in a process of education correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.2. Meaning is created by primitive language functions. 3. 'Language' is a personal game. I.e. when I think of 'tree' it is completely different from yours 4. Because considering 'language as a straightforward script is personal over-simplification.
The picture of reality "slab" is linked to the sound.Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.It is (in aphorism 2) not the purpose of the words to evoke images, that only the effect of a personal ostensive training.Much more different association is needed to come to 'understanding'
(Henkt: that only means complex association offering after
much training a basic intuition).7. "Language-games" : acting on words, repeating words etc. 8. Language1= { block, pillar, slab and beam} An expansion could be any form of numerals. Say the alphabet. An other expansion two words as "there" and "this" Order = "d---slab---there", while showing a colour sample, and when saying "there" pointing to a destination. Result: pupil takes similar d objects from stock and brings them to 'destination. And so on. 9. Ostensive training of numerals is for instance pointing to 3 similar slabs and say: "c slabs". Children do learn the use of the first or six cardinal numerals in this way. "There" and "this" are also taught ostensively, but in this case the pointing gives a clue about the use of the words too. 10. What does "slab" mean? Manipulating slabs does not take 'understanding'. That takes some statement like: "The word . . . .signifies . . . ."And what is the meaning of the noise "four slabs?"Aphorism 11-20 about Language as a Tool Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 11. Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a ruler, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screw.---The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects. (And in both cases there are similarities.) 12. It is like looking into the cabin of a locomotive. All handles (words) looking more or less alike. 13. The statement: "Every word in language signifies something" exactly shows that it can mean anything. 14.Nonsense to say: "All tools serve to modify something. That is a statement without content. 15. Naming something is like attaching a label to a thing. 16. Colour not necessarily part of language. 17. Words can be classificated in any way 18.Any language is incomplete. Don't worry about it 19. Slab! Similar to "Bring me a slab". 20. Most sentences are 'elliptical', because they are shortcuts---in comparison with a particular paradigm of our grammar. Aphorism 21-30 about Tools having multiple purposes Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 21. Tone can completely change meaning. Order: (get) "Five slabs".
Report: (there are) "Five slabs!"22. Frege's idea that every assertion contains an assumption is just a concept, you might as well say: " the sky is blue" Reading aloud a written sentence between Frege's assertion sign marks is like singing a song. You must know beginning and end, and everything in between.23. There are countless kinds of sentences. As many as learning processes. "Language " is a form of life.Some examples:- giving orders, and obeying them- describing the appearance of an object- constructing an object from a description - guessing riddles - making a joke- asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying. 24. Language in itself says nothing about thinking or believing 25. Many animals do not use language. Period. 26. Language is labelling. But what isn't? 27. We do the most various things with our sentences. Language is not just the uttering of words. It is the use of words in the activity of language. And there are countless activities.28. However clever defined, the object being pointed to with words is ambiguous. 29. Every sentence has multiple interpretations 30. One has already to know (or be able to do) something in order to be capable of asking a thing's name. But what does one have to know? Aphorism 31-40 about Rules being Abstract, saying nothing about 'the total' of a studied phenonomen Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 31. Recognizing the king in chess only helps if you already know the rules of the game You can learn the rules of chess without shapes You can also capture chess by watching. Learning chess normally supposes knowing playing games. We may say: learning is quicker when already knowing something, if at all possible 32. Languages can be totally different logics. Like English and Chinese. Then your only start advantage is talent in in logic and association 33. Pointing at things is ambiguous - is this blue the same as the blue over there? - do you see any difference? - it's turning fine, you can already see blue sky again. - what's this blue called.'-Is it 'indigo'?" 34. Possible interpretations of any language are ALWAYS multiple. 35. Learning is a tuning of interpretation between 2 persons 36. Learning is only clever guessed repetition. 37. Learning is only clever guessed repetition 38. The word "This" is connected with the conception of naming as, so to speak, an occult process. Naming is as a queer connexion of a word with an object. Don't try to explain it philosophically 39. A 'real name' replaces a 'label name'. It supposes a virtual existence independent of real existence. Excalibur is sharp still has meaning if this sword actually is blunt. 40. "meaning" supposes a "correspondence" between word and object. When Mr. N. N. dies one says that the bearer of the name dies, not that the meaning dies. Thus the name still functions as a name. Aphorism 41-50 about being VIRTUAL studied further Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 41.The order "Give me N" has still meaning when the object named N is broken 42. Give me X has meaning even when the name X is never used before 43. SOMETIMES the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer. 44. The sentence "Excalibur has a sharp blade" is nonsense if Excalibur is present and blunt. 45. The demonstrative word "this" always has a bearer, even if it hasn't 46. A primary element has "per definition" no description. It just is. Russell's 'individuals' and my 'objects' (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) are such primary elements. 47/48/49. Simple and composite are absolute agreements. A primary element per definition cannot be defined. It is simple by agreement. 50. Primary elements are ABSTRACT, or virtual. I.e. we can attribute neither being nor non-being to them Zarah2nd: The 20th century 'philosopher' Karl Popper never grasped the concept 'virtual'. Because the idea 'simple' is TRUE (absolute) and can't be falsified. That way 'simple' has no relation anymore to living reality. Aphorism 51-60 about Virtual Notions Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 51. To prevent mistakes when connecting signs and say colours, we must focus on the details of what goes on; must look at them from close to. 52. Mice are obviously more than grey rags and dust. Let's go into details. 53. A table CAN serve as the expression of a rule of the language-game, it can be said that what we call a rule of a language-game may have very different roles in the game. 54. when we learn to play say the games "Monopoly" or "Risk" then rules are used as an aid in teaching the game. 'Players' have characteristic behaviour. 55.The names in language are 'indestructible'. Virtual notions are indestructible, they are paradigms used in connexion with the name in the language-game. 56. A sample is some Picture of Reality 57. "Something red can be destroyed, but red cannot be destroyed 58. A metaphysical statement (virtual) . "Red exists" only is a statement, but says nothing about "red". 59. A name signifies only a virtual indestructible property of. It can be any Picture of Rality 60. Logic: a composition is made in parts of an object. This process is called "analysis" Aphorism 61-69 about Agreeing Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 61.If 2 objects contain the same parts, in the same order , the we might AGREE that they are partly similar. 62. There is not always a sharp distinction between essential and inessential properties of an object. Being called partly similar might be tricky. 63. An analysed subject might be analysed in a seducing way. Then being similar in those aspects is inessential. 64. Symbols might represent anything. 65. Language = a bunch of agreed relationships 66. Games are similar in being networks of 'properties' 67. Games might have "family resemblances"; You might say: 'games' form a family. 68. The concept 'game' is 'open'. Rules can always be added 69. When might a process be called a game? 70. Don't accept any pictures as exact definition of a game (Henkt: 'Absolutism'. It leads to using words like 'terrorist' for other players ) Aphorism 71-79 about any concept being only 1 explanation Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 71. A 'blurred' view is a concept anyway, and is only blurred compared to some other concept. (Henkt: relativity) Any general definition might be misunderstood. The point is that this is how we play the game. 72. Generalizing is dangerous. Like: "The colour that these things have in common is what I call 'blue' ": . 73. Take care, pictures always might be misleading. For instance: Everybody draws different trees. You never know for sure that they all mean the concept 'tree'. 74. Every rule can be interpretated in many ways. 75. Knowledge is personal 76. One picture of the same game might have sharp borders, the other none at all 77. ' Sharp' might be defined as 'blurred', and vice versa. As well 'good' as 'bad' 78. You can know something in limitless ways. 79. The statement "Moses did not exist" - the Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from Egypt ? - their leader was not called Moses or, ? - there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses -- ? or: etc. etc.-- ? Moses might have limitless meanings. And the different properties can be interpretated in limitless ways. For instance what do you mean by leader? (Henkt: scientific defining doesn't exist) 80. Any statement has also a statistic side. It might be TRUE a% of time and FALSE (100-A)% of time Aphorism 80-89 about Logics as Sorting Methods Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 81.Looking for logic in use of language, supposes that there IS logic in language. It is idealizing language. But here the word "ideal" doesn't mean ideal. Language might be differing from idea. 82. A language rule is only a hypothesis 83. Games might change while being played. Languages are 'living' systems. 84.Language is personal and not totally defined. 85. Rules might be interprated in many ways. 86. Completeness of rules is only a virtual idea. Complete rules don't exist in practice 87. Explanations are PER DEFINITION incomplete. But in order, if serving their purpose 88. Let's define as "inexact" something that has multiple interpretations. But if it works, then fine 89. Logic only claims something to remain ' within rules that are 'open'. Logic tries to explain something empirical. 90. Logics don't penetrate phenomena. Only gives a structure to some part of a phenonomen. Logic is grammar, structured life. Aphorism 90-100 Warning against being dazzled by (your own) Ideal Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 91.Logic only eliminates mis-'understandings', i.e. false intuitions. There is no final analysis 92/93. Logic makes surveyable by a rearrangement, but says nothing about 'essence'. And logic might be misunderstood 94. Logic: 'A proposition is a queer thing!' 95. 'Understanding' is virtual, it is a paradox (Henkt: it is a reaching a new basic intuition after much TRAINING with complex manipulation using already accepted basics. Accepted basics are neither 'right' nor 'wrong', just accepted. It is very well possible to make an ethics based on dubious basics.) 96. Thought is a language game. A picture of the world. 97. Thought is a fractal engine. It is as process EXTREMELY simple and results in beautiful crystals. (Henkt: Compare it to water made into ice. Quote Franz Kafka: A book must be an axe for the frozen sea in us.) 98. Logic simulates 1 of limitless orders in reality 99. A sentence PER DEFINITION makes sense, you should find out which sense in this PERSONAL case. 100. Games are dirty, only we are dazzled by the ideal. Wittgenstein about the word 'soul' Ludwig Wittgenstein: The human body is the best picture of the human soul Bodies and pictures can be sensed, the word 'soul' is non-sense This is what Wittgenstein means in common sense. The sound/word 'soul' is a definition, and can mean anything in any language. 'God from space' might mean with 'soul', his 'law and order' made logical. Language is about BEHAVIOR. 'Soul' only points at reality when in some way it pictures BEHAVIOR But then 'soul' is fysical, and per definition it is not. Parachute view
|
Zarah2nd
