NP Witt List (was something Pynchon-related at some point, maybe)

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Peter Giordano writes:
> I differ to Andrew on Wittgenstein but hold fast to the following:

> 1) There are such things as facts, in both the ideal (mathematics) and the
> physical world (the relationship between elements) and the historical

No one ever denied there were such things as facts (if you think I did
clearly you have *fundamentally* misunderstood me [and, I would argue,
Wittgenstein]). The question is as to their status rather than their
existence.

> 2) the explication and/or explanation of facts is always subjective

LudWit would disagree with you on this one too. A fact is probably one
of the definitive, one might say canonical, examples of something
objective. Hence explanations of facts (correct ones) must also be
rooted in that same objectivity (can't use a subjective argument to
correctly establish an objective fact now, can we). Explanations are
fundamental to the establishment of the objective, so this is hardly
surprising. I (and IMHO LudWit) would advise you to crank down your
notion of what objective means, though. It's a status people grant to
things - not without forethought, reason and the possibility of
revision of course - grant not by saying yes to some proposition but
by adopting expectations and undertaking actions which grant an
objective status to the thing in question.

So, for example, the colour red is not a subjective notion but
something English speakers are all able to identify. To show that
redness is a human construct rather than a property of things note
that e.g. the French word `rouge' is roughly similar to red but does
not entirely overlap in its application. Things which are red may or
may not be `rouge' but the applicability of either description is not
in the things but in our way of viewing them. And note that although
this usually requires a community, it is not necessarily a collective
effort (a man on a desert island can make objective judgements and
even establish new, objective facts). To explain what is going on here
in more abstract terms, the mistake I believe you are making is to
assume there is some baseline notion of identity which is just given
rather than layered systems of individuation which people have
invented and applied. Just as there is no baseline in things which
determines that they are coloured a particular colour neither is there
for being rock or falling under any other such category.


> 3) Artists (novelist, poets, historians, etc.) use facts to create
> something else - And these creations may bend facts, follow facts exactly,
> or completely deny facts; the artistic achievement is that they ulitmately
> create works which are on some level true

I'm not saying that there are not degrees in the concession of
veracity. But, at bottom, what is fact is what we take to be
fact. With historical fact, if you talk about what actually happened
and what the histories record as happening you presume that there is
some independent handle on what actually happened above and beyond
what people remember and what historians have argued for from the
relics (and from their contemporary culture with all its conceptual
baggage). But where is this handle to be found other than in people's
memories or in histories?

Novelists do indeed usually choose to avoid the architectural planning
and careful carpentry required of an historian but we were talking of
Pynchon, no?  He made sure a whole lot of his material fitted snugly
around the relics and then fantasised like crazy around this
framework. His novels cannot easily be criticised as to their veracity
on historical grounds. On grounds of plausibility, yes. But not
because there is evidence to say that the things he recounts never
happened.

> 4) True and factual are not the same thing

Well, that depends on how you use the terms, really, doesn't it?

> 5) It is possible to use facts to lie - And lies are not artistic
> acheivements

It is also possible to lie (artlessly or otherwise) and reveal facts.
I don't really need you as big brother to police my interpretation of
other people's `lies'. Maybe your grandmother might be more interested
in hearing your moans about liars.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of pleasure clos'd by your senses five