early and late WITT/TRP

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Andrew, purveyor of enlightenmentt, parses LW nicely:

>When LW says that the only necessity is logical necessity what he
>means is that the only necessity is in the *form* of the world - that
>it is a conjunction of contingent atomic truths i.e. that it can only
>be described by terms of the form
>
>    A_1 ^ A_2 ^ A_3 ^ ...
>
and a big fat thank you for your clear rendering of TRACTATUS.,So I turn to you, 
or anybody, to tell me what one makes of LW's repudiation of TRAC. in 
PHILOSPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS?  Is he saying that the atomic picture approach 
fails because  there is no way to--connect--the logical structure of language to that of 
the world w/out--constructing--the connection (thus breaking the positivistic 
rule)?  So the question of this pots is:
Does GR stand to V. as PI stands to TRAC?  Does the attention shift to the leap of 
faith, what Paul M., I think, puts as: 

"this project also informs GR. An oscillation between (infinite) resignation in the 
face of the 'facts', and the 'leap of faith', the presentation of unactualized
possibility?"

A recognition that there is no access to the world directly through language, but 
that this is not a bad thing, because it helps us to stop seeking Truth, since all we are 
doing is playing language games when we do so.  But it doesn't deny the existence 
of Truth, or even transcendence (IMO), it just puts them on the other side of the 
great divide from the forms of life, and maybe elevates these forms to a higher 
ontological status than they possess when viewed merely as logical equivalents of 
some Platonically pure atomic structure (or course--ontology--itself no longer 
means what it used to mean either, right?).

That this is very close to my understanding of TRP's world view is no surprise, to 
me at least,  but this is fairly heady stuff so who knows.

john m