If I can start working on this in very small bits....
Consider what I said above (ahem, below) about metaphorical parallels:
"Some sets of facts can be arranged in a metaphorical parallel, such as thought, spoken sentence, written sentence, typed sentence, sentence sung to a melody. These are all different facts which can refer to the same state of affairs in the world. They all refer to each other, even if there is no objective state of affairs (in the world) which they represent."
Wittgenstein believed that the power to see, grasp, understand the connection between these sets of facts is the defining action of the self. The self recognizes a "logical form" which is shared, primarily, by facts and the sentences which refer to them, and secondarily by all of the various facts which reflect the same form as the sentence. Analysis of this form through symbolic logic reveals, however, that it has no content. The analysis always reveals a tautology. When he traces down the "general form of proposition", it turns out to be the trivial: "Such and such is the case". One way to say this might be that the primary function of the language-using self is to recognize sameness. Those of you who understand binary code might see this more easily than the rest of us. As I understand it, however, all of the computer functions which gets this message from me to all of you reduces to signals of "off" and "on" transmitted through electrical lines. Comparisons of facts, and the recognition of sameness and difference between them, is the foundation of language.
There is a problem here, however, because we do not ordinarily think of the typed sentence as meaning the thought in my head. We think of it as meaning the state of affairs in the world. Consider a simple descriptive sentence in order to grasp this point: The dog is sleeping under the desk. The same relation holds between the thought when I have it and the sentence which I have typed as holds between the sentence and the dog, desk, and the act of sleeping. But we think of one correspondence as meaning and not the other. For there to be a difference here, there must be more to one relation than to the other. But what?
Gotta go now. I'll try to think of an answer by tomorrow.
9:50:50 AM 
|
|
