AtD, naming

[Mark Kohut]

Page can defend himself, and I am not speaking for him.
  However, my understanding of Wittgenstein's meaning is this:
   
  When he spoke of 'what could be said" here, he meant in some logical, scientific-like way,
  going back to Kant (and others).   
   
  He meant, say most, I think, that what can not be said "logically" must be passed over
  in a scientifically philosophical way of understanding. 
   
   He cleared the way (in his mind and others) for METAPHOR, poetry, art and, some say, a possible type of religious mysticism. All of the 'scientific-like' statements---let's call them, simplictically, 'facts', are few, so all of the stuff passed over in "silence" is what we might
  endlessly 'talk'--thru poetry, art, unstupid theological words................(and more)
   
  

David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
  I think there's a big difference between the statement by Bryan and
that by Page, and I think Bryan's is more correct. It's not that
something can't be SAID, it's just that nothing can be adequately
definitive. We are left with approximations, metaphors, symbolisms,
all of which have aspects of the thing which is unspeakable, but which
are important and need to be said.

David Morris

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Bryan Snyder wrote:
>
> Holy Center is ALWAYS APPROACHING... But never reached...

> On 5/2/08 7:18 PM, "Page" 
wrote:
> 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
> So, to my mind, there is something very important about the distinction between what can be named and what cannot. It is the difference between what can be said and what cannot be said.




       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20080505/4b33488d/attachment-0001.html>