GRGR(16) non-verbal spaces

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Josh Kortbein wrote:
> 
> Peter Petto writes:
> >Terrance F. Flaherty wrote about the interpreted sferics, "Die Welt ist
> >Alles Was der Fall ist":
> >
> >>Facts, quality is besides the point, moral judgments are not
> >>part of the case, events are random, they simply occur, and
> >>their meaning exists only in their facts, in their actual
> >>occurrence. No ethics, no meaning.
> >
> >I don't believe this to be a proper interpretation of Wittgenstein's thought.
> >
> >I can't recall anything he wrote or said indicating that events are random.
> >In his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (which opens with "The world is all
> >that is the case") he places meaning outside the world of facts -- beyond
> >some scientific zero.
> >
> >And I can't imagine him saying "No ethics, no meaning".
> 
> Certainly not!

But what is in the Novel V.? That's what I'm talking about
here. Not my interpretation of Wittgenstein.  I wrote: 

In the mirror, in the vouyeur's dreams (vouyeur's dreams are
not their own) Weissman visits him during sickness and
declares that HE HAS INTERPRETED the sferics, "Die Welt ist
Alles Was der Fall ist" the facts, the amoral facts of the
Seige Party--a wild Fasching, with murder and sadism. 

My comments are not about Wittgenstein, but I will indulge
you if you care to discuss him, though I have not read him
well, too boring, and even with the companion, I found he
gave me a pain behind the eyes. 


> 
> It seems his approach to ethics, post-Tractatus, was much like his
> approach to other philosophical problems. While that's admittedly
> difficult and hard to apply, it's still a "system" (using the word
> loosely) of ethics. :)
> 
> >I've often read that LW founded two opposing schools of philosophy, but I
> >suspect he felt otherwise. I believe that he felt that most people
> >misunderstood Tractatus, and his later work was a second attempt to explain
> >what he was getting at.
> 
> LW, in the 1940s:
> 
>         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 presupposed as understood
>         in full generality.
> 
>         [Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol I, sec. 38]
> 
> This and other things indicate that W variously wanted to save, reject,
> or modify various parts of the _Tractatus_. In the _Investigations_
> there's a lot of what-was-I-thinking kind of talk.
> 
> Josh
> 
> --
>  say it, no ideas but in things -