taking Jules to task

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu writes:
>  Andrew, why are you always dropping names  faster than Armand's
>  duck can fly?  Esp. that TRACTATUS which LudWitt repudiated later 
> in life?  Obviously you're trying to show how much more au
>  courant you are w/ analytical philospohy.

That `repudiated' misses the mark somewhat. Perhaps you *should* read
him before attempting to gloss over his work. I recommended
Wittgenstein to you, yet again, because his work is highly relevant to
the subject of Russell, which you introduced. In his (Russell's) intro
to the Tractatus he attempted to sketch out a solution to a problem
which he saw as the foundation of Wittgenstein's argument - that a
picture could only display reality by imitating it, that it could not
display the links between what was portrayed and reality - and by
picture here Wittgenstein included linguistic as well as graphic
renderings. Russell went on to fuck up his mathematical philosophy big
time in trying to deal with this problem. If you cannot see the
relevance of this problem to writing and Pynchon's writing in
particular then I can only recommend once again that you go read
Wittgenstein. Leibniz and Spinoza were offered up for fun. Your
mileage may well vary.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
We drank the blood of our enemies.
The blood of our friends, we cherished.