AtD, naming

[Page]

I must respectfully disagree about what can be said and what cannot be said. 
In the Wittgensteinian sense (which is where we started), there are many 
things which cannot be said. These propositions (sentences) are nonsense. 
The only propositions that have sense (can be said) are the propositions of 
natural science. All other sentences/propositions are meaningless. Including 
the Tractatus itself.

Tractatus 6.53

The correct method in philosophy would be the following: to say nothing that 
cannot be said--i.e. propositions of natural science...

One result of this belief is that metaphors, symbols, and the various other 
weapons of the novelist and poet are nonsense in LW's specific meaning. 
However, they exist as part of the Mystical. Not a bad place to be. For W. 
the things that cannot be said are in many ways more important than 
propositions of natural science. Ethics.

In 6.54, LW specifically states that his propositions are nonsensical.

Section 7 is next, and last section.

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

I am not clear on what you mean by "we are left with approximations, 
metaphors, symbolisms...." If "we are left with" is meant to be dismissive 
of what follows, and most particularly metaphors, then I must again 
respectfully disagree. Metaphors are richer and far more meaningful, 
fruitful, and instructive than merely literal statements. The only weakness 
of metaphors is that they require pre-existing literal uses of words. 
Contrary to an all-too-common belief, metaphors cannot be cashed out into a 
set of literal sentences.

However, your last sentence seems to make my interpretation contradictory. 
And I do not make that charge against you.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: "Bryan Snyder" <wilsonistrey at gmail.com>
Cc: "Page" <page at quesnelbc.com>; "Ian Livingston" <igrlivingston at gmail.com>; 
<pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: AtD, naming


>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 <wilsonistrey at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Holy Center is ALWAYS APPROACHING... But never reached...
>
>> On 5/2/08 7:18 PM, "Page" <page at quesnelbc.com> 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.
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 05/05/2008 
5:11 PM