Wittgensteinians
Life in the Post-Analytic World, Given by the Man Who Ended Philosophy As History Knew It

Home » The Basement » Reservoir » [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk?
[Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6989] Thu, 15 December 2011 20:18 Go to next message
Sean Wilson is currently offline  Sean Wilson
Messages: 793
Registered: August 2009
Location: Form of Life
Senior Member

(reply to Kirby re: Monk's radio performance)

... I thought Monk's comments were perfect, as usual. His point about Wittgenstein not liking him isn't local: I imagine it would apply to just about every Wittgensteinian. Surely he would be disgusted by me. But, on the other hand, one wonders if there is an over-emphasis on what really would have been a kind of bluster or storm at the surface of Wittgenstein's personality, versus what that indulgence would have become, over time. Wittgenstein didn't just talk about aspect-change, he lived it. So maybe as he passed through life -- particularly toward the end -- he would have come to see Monk as being the gem he is. Also, I think Monk could be wrong about it: It's possible Wittgenstein would have admired him for his professional and ethical manner.

Finally, I think Monk may have jumped upon one issue a bit too forcefully in the program. He didn't seem to like the idea that Wittgenstein used movies as an escape ("shower bath") -- he wanted, instead, to stress how Wittgenstein loved cinema (and other art) for its own sake. My point, especially for movies, is that both should be regarded as accurate. I'm not sure that point came across: it was like Monk was taking a counter-position rather than simply adding balance.

But anyway, was the best 30 minutes a man can possibly spend in the day.

Regards and thanks.

Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
 


----- Original Message -----
From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com>
To: wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:53 PM
Subject: [Wittrs] re "seeing according to an interpretation"

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, WittrFeed
<wittrsfeed@undergroundwiki.org> wrote:
> link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0184rgn
>
> link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0184rgn >

Comments:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6518470663/in/photostream


Kirby  

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6990 is a reply to message #6989] Thu, 15 December 2011 22:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
> But anyway, was the best 30 minutes a man can possibly spend in the day. >
> Regards and thanks.
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.

Yes, I confess to only listening through Monk imagining himself being terrified of Wittgenstein, when I had to hit pause, ironically to attend the Wittgenstein Study Circle me 'n Alex have going.

I later Facebooked some remark about the BBC being oh so intellectual compared we poor Americanos.

"I fight back sometimes" I say (so like I'm gonna be super intellectual?), only to make some sophomoric / demented comparison of our beloved Ludwig's visage (somewhat truncated in that picture) to that of Herman Munster.

Separated at birth?

http://bit.ly/v5H9uI
http://bit.ly/tsiEjh

OK, so maybe I'm fighting back about his being so handsome (yeah, sure he was). They really lionize him don't they?

They didn't talk about the funny movie though, with my Facebook friend Nabil as the martian.

Alex's dad was a scholar of Himalayan religions whereas mine was a doctor of urban / regional planning. They both worked in Bhutan in their respective professional capacities. True propositions. That's the world that is the case.

Anyway, after I got back later and read Sean's comments above, I advanced the tape.

I cringed a bit about the whistle and its threatened use. I could well imagine like a Monty Python sketch, wherein this shallow guy with the whistle is really impatient when the conversation turns towards anything like *ideas* -- yet they're trying to do this show on deep thinkers.... I was cracking up just thinking about it.

Hey, yeah, the Wittgenstein-at-the-movies meme is waaaaay underrated. Why not see the eyeball in the Tractatus, the one that's like looking at the world -- except that's *not* how it really is -- as a lot like Wittgenstein way at the front row, the screen completely enveloping him... Don't you see people?: this was Wittgenstein *at work* in his Visual Room, immersed in some world (any world -- like the Western (often with a moral tale)). Then he'd go home to the (mental) hospital (influenza zone, whatever).

Film is a *language* after all (semiotics). So *there* are your propositions in your "picture theory of meaning". Lets stop thinking about just words on paper and start looking at more 20th century communications media.

Isn't driving a car a language game? I've been thinking about this.

I remember a silly argument on wittgenstein-dialognet about whether playing chess was a language game. I'm like "of course it is" but then you have all these suspicions, people wanting to draw the line, to corral language. If the tongue doesn't wag, or the eyes don't scan text (but they do in driving), then we can't possibly be talking about *language* games. Oh gimme a break.

The BBC interviewer sounds a bit repressed given he's struggled with Wittgenstein in school and sometimes harbors a deep skepticism that philosophy is anything but BS.

He can only express this evil thought by confessing publicly over the airwaves to gross stupidity, and then asking if perchance the emperor is really without clothes.

"Oh, lots of clothes" say the experts. Glad we got that out of the way.

What got me somewhat irked was the bit about chimps (I explained to Alex about being a "Quaker animist" again -- I think we might've been covering old ground there).

"Oh, if only we knew then what we know now, we wouldn't have wasted all that money trying to talk to chimps" (this was about the lion we're not understanding). Say what again? What is it that we think we know?

I know a family that spent a lot of quality time with Koko the gorilla (that was Rick Sonnenfeld's family -- Rick and his son Cody visited Portland recently, got to meet Alex):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6358758115/ (Rabbi Rick -- a professor of lightning actually, and roommate at Princeton, freshman year)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5543144197/ (photo by Rick -- Study Circle, me 'n Alex)

That sign language business was *not* just wasted effort. Lots of real communications occurred.

The gorilla even named their parrot ("red devil").

Sure, we can argue if that's "really" what happened (can gorilla's name pets?) -- but of course there's no "really" about it, just hominids making up stuff, including their rules. That's just what we do, we hominids (and not just us -- bees do it, birds do it...).

"*Of course* driving is a language game!" (a kind of expostulation).

Alex and I meandered home (me at the wheel), having eaten a crab (you'll see it there in Photostream, next to that Facebook excerpt).

Maybe they just meant talking with chimps was a waste of time, but gorillas were a more compatible life form? http://www.koko.org/world/

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6991 is a reply to message #6990] Sat, 17 December 2011 18:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
> "I fight back sometimes" I say (so like I'm gonna be super > intellectual?), only to make some sophomoric / demented comparison of > our beloved Ludwig's visage (somewhat truncated in that picture) to > that of Herman Munster.
>
> Separated at birth?
>
> http://bit.ly/v5H9uI
> http://bit.ly/tsiEjh
>

I linked to this thread from 'Comic Interlude' in my journals:

http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2011/12/comic-interlude.html

(last sentence brings you back)

Twas the night of the Wanderers retreat, winter solstice, at the Linus Pauling House last night.

Don Wardwell sang a song by Charlie Chaplin, an accomplished composer we sometimes forget.

Jon Bunce, musician, accompanied him on guitar.

Later, at Steve Holden's apartment, I was showing Don my ridiculous juxtaposition of Herman Munster and Ludwig Wittgenstein pix in adjacent tabs (see above), when we came across this picture, closing the circuit with Chaplin:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6524404695/in/photostream

... a comic evening indeed.**

Remembering the punchline of the Wittgenstein movie (with Nabil):

LW, on his death bed: "I would have liked to write a philosophy that was nothing but jokes".

Interlocutor: "so why didn't you?"

LW: "I had no sense of humor".

Badaboom.

http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2011/03/wittgenstein-movie-review.html

Kirby

** I titled this copy "Who is Who?" because the article where this came from seems to suppose this is Charlie made up as Herman. Are we looking at Photoshop magic here? The mustache has me suspicious. This isn't Fred posing either, is it?

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6992 is a reply to message #6991] Sat, 17 December 2011 19:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Phillip DeMouy is currently offline  John Phillip DeMouy
Messages: 46
Registered: April 2011
Member
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 15:43 -0800, kirby urner wrote: >
> > "I fight back sometimes" I say (so like I'm gonna be super > > intellectual?), only to make some sophomoric / demented comparison > of
> > our beloved Ludwig's visage (somewhat truncated in that picture) to > > that of Herman Munster.
> >
> > Separated at birth?


That's amusing and had never occurred to me. But two comparisons had...

Hugh Laurie, star of "House", but also featured in "A Bit of Frye & Laurie", "Black Adder III", "Black Adder Goes Forth", and a very early appearance (alongside a young Dawn French) in the video for Kate Bush's song "Experiment IV".

http://images.buddytv.com/usrimages/usr3170030/3170030_house-laurie103.jpg http://img2-1.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081003/Best-TV/House-Hugh-Laurie_l.jpg

Also, Patrick McGoohan, star of "Danger Man", nee "Secret Agent Man", the innovative and influential cult classic, which he also created, "The Prisoner", and appearing more recently (prior to his recent passing in 2009) in various films, including "Braveheart", and "A Time to Kill".

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/01/14/mcgoohan460.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_thlFYTjJbmQ/SXAmV24nrUI/AAAAAAAALPE/x2xkgo9YSLc/s1600-h/Arrival18.jpg http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvfzeqb7QK1qzonn2o1_500.gif

I can only imagine these comparisons might be more flattering. I suspect he'd relate to the brilliant, cantankerous, impatient, ruthlessly honest Dr. House. And I am sure he'd admire McGoohan, who turned down the part of James Bond, 007, because he didn't want his children to see their father kissing someone other than Mummy, and who artfully explored themes of alienation and other issues raised by the modern world in "The Prisoner".

Fred Gwynne, aka "Herman Munster", sans make-up...

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/img_lib/Fred%20Gwynne%20214% 2010-30-10.jpg
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/img_lib/Fred%20Gwynne%20208% 2010-30-10.jpg

and very young in the classic, "Car 54, Where are You?"

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/img_lib/Fred%20Gwynne%20241% 208-26-11.jpg


> >
> > http://bit.ly/v5H9uI
> > http://bit.ly/tsiEjh
> >
>
> I linked to this thread from 'Comic Interlude' in my journals: >
> http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2011/12/comic-interlude.html >
> (last sentence brings you back)
>
> Twas the night of the Wanderers retreat, winter solstice, at > the Linus Pauling House last night.
>
> Don Wardwell sang a song by Charlie Chaplin, an accomplished > composer we sometimes forget.
>
> Jon Bunce, musician, accompanied him on guitar.
>
> Later, at Steve Holden's apartment, I was showing Don my > ridiculous juxtaposition of Herman Munster and Ludwig > Wittgenstein pix in adjacent tabs (see above), when we > came across this picture, closing the circuit with Chaplin: >
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6524404695/in/photostream >
> ... a comic evening indeed.**
>
> Remembering the punchline of the Wittgenstein movie (with Nabil): >
> LW, on his death bed: "I would have liked to write a philosophy that > was nothing but jokes".
>
> Interlocutor: "so why didn't you?"
>
> LW: "I had no sense of humor".
>
> Badaboom.
>
> http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2011/03/wittgenstein-movie-review.html >
> Kirby
>
> ** I titled this copy "Who is Who?" because the article where this > came from seems to suppose this is Charlie made up as Herman. Are we > looking at Photoshop magic here? The mustache has me suspicious. > This isn't Fred posing either, is it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New > Topic
> Messages in this topic (3)
> Recent Activity:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on > - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >
> .
>
> __,_._,___


_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6993 is a reply to message #6992] Sun, 18 December 2011 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
> Fred Gwynne, aka "Herman Munster", sans make-up... > and very young in the classic, "Car 54, Where are You?" >

Hey thank you for connecting more dots for me.
Networks through more modern media, not just
books, is a hallmark of some brands of scholarship. Wittgenstein's influence extends to more than new
styles of writing in philosophy. We get new ways
of analyzing and making films (videos, commercials etc.).

Linking to 'The Prisoner' is quite apropos, as is your mention of Ian's 007, as this reconnects us to the various 'Jew of Linz' type theses, Le Carre novels, and the great as-yet-to-be-made BBC series wherein LW is indeed a high ranking KGB recruiter, yet
eluding the British noose. Could be fun.

I continued following the Munster-Chaplin thread
after my last post -- one might say in a stumbling (wandering, random walking) manner, coming across
his rant (lightning talk) in 'The Great Dictator' on a friend's FaceBook profile, a film we also discussed at Linus Pauling House Friday night (where a
Chaplin song was sung):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6528610381/in/photostream/ (Don and Jon singing -- I'll add the song title to the picture when I get it from Jon).

Chaplin is satirizing Hitler (who reputedly saw the movie more than once) while Ray and Raymond
(Raymond an MD I gather) on BBC radio are on
the contrary lionizing the handsome Wittgenstein
-- in this proposed BBC series the secret arch
nemesis of his old recess foe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Chaplin#The_Great_Dictator_.281940.29

Adolf teased Ludwig mercilessly we (the BBC screen- writers) could show. Would they have to pay
Cornish royalties? -- I'd say get him as a consultant up front.

Here's that rant (by Charlie):

http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2011/12/lightning-talk.html (set to new pictures by a current times editor)

I owe it to Alex to find where I think Kimberly was meanest to Ludwig (teased him most), but I have
a memory of my daughter borrowing 'Jew of Linz'.
She's a huge 'House MD' fan by the way, loving
that link.

Let me book mark a paragraph of my own writing
for future reference:

("there is no doubt that Wittgenstein and Philby
would have much to stutter about together in German") [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6806 ]

-- OK found it (next morning), pg. 76:

"What between Dostoevski, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Beethoven, Prokoviev, wind instruments, Alfred Cortot's emendations of the piano concerto Paul Wittgenstein commissioned and Philby's fund-raising on behalf of the Austrian Communists, there is no doubt that Wittgestein and Philby would have had much to stutter about together in German." -- Kimberly Cornish.

Sounds like teasing to me.

Another branch in this thread that I followed with the guitar-playing Bunce is the Frankenstein story, which he claims is the most retold (by some criterion -- more than Jesus).

I wondered if the count included like 'Rocky Horror' which has its science-made creature, and/or all
those cartoons that have a Dr. Evil bringing some
hulk to life, because yeah, there are definitely a lot of those -- way more than crucifixions. He wasn't sure what was counted.

In any case, I do think there might be an element of "we've created a monster" in the Wittgenstein story, in that it seemed so sure he was part of the Enlightenment movement to escape the vortex of superstition and at last advance to our noble positive future as positively science-minded. Optimism about the brave new
machine-world to come was strong in pre-WW2
Nazi PR as well.

I'd say Wittgenstein was certainly science minded in the sense Ben Franklin was, or Priestly, or Hertz. But he wasn't into the Ism of Scientism, which I'd say is what veered into Eugenics and spun out in the
Hitlerian period, taking a lot of supposedly rational people into a moral / ethical abyss. Scientism craves the worshipful attention given authority figures, wants to be one of those. The televangelists of the science world, the "other" fundamentalists, are the "science" uber alles types (re their kind of science).

Thanks again.

Kirby


> http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/img_lib/Fred%20Gwynne%20241% > 208-26-11.jpg
>
>
>> >
>> > http://bit.ly/v5H9uI
>> > http://bit.ly/tsiEjh

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6994 is a reply to message #6993] Sun, 18 December 2011 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Phillip DeMouy is currently offline  John Phillip DeMouy
Messages: 46
Registered: April 2011
Member
You're most welcome. I'd supposed you'd enjoy those connections. Personally, I tend to find that sort of thing a bit fanciful - entertaining, though I often have difficulty discerning the point. Still, I don't deny it can be interesting. Something I've been meaning to get to is exploring connections between Wittgenstein and Schenker (the musicologist). And this connects as well with seeing aspects and with Goethe's and Wittgenstein's discussions of the urpflanze.

Oh, here's another odd resemblance. Somehow, this painting of Cosmo Kramer from "Seinfeld" reminded me of some of Wittgenstein's portraits.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjSRcNENN2s/TGrg2VNZEDI/AAAAAAAAAN0/pnjMpj5g6rQ/s1600/kramer800.jpg

But more than any vague resemblance (I cannot imagine Wittgenstein with such an expression), it reminded me of a remark he'd made in a lecture on aesthetics, discussing a picture of a monks having a vision of the Blessed Virgin. Wittgenstein noted that the slightest fraction of an inch in the rendering of the monk's mouth could turn a beatific expression into a leer and turn a pictorial expression of piety into one of blasphemy.

On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 10:48 -0800, kirby urner wrote: >
> > Fred Gwynne, aka "Herman Munster", sans make-up... > > and very young in the classic, "Car 54, Where are You?" > >
>
> Hey thank you for connecting more dots for me.
> Networks through more modern media, not just
> books, is a hallmark of some brands of scholarship. > Wittgenstein's influence extends to more than new > styles of writing in philosophy. We get new ways > of analyzing and making films (videos, commercials > etc.).
>
> Linking to 'The Prisoner' is quite apropos, as is your > mention of Ian's 007, as this reconnects us to the > various 'Jew of Linz' type theses, Le Carre novels, > and the great as-yet-to-be-made BBC series wherein > LW is indeed a high ranking KGB recruiter, yet
> eluding the British noose. Could be fun.
>
> I continued following the Munster-Chaplin thread > after my last post -- one might say in a stumbling > (wandering, random walking) manner, coming across > his rant (lightning talk) in 'The Great Dictator' on > a friend's FaceBook profile, a film we also discussed > at Linus Pauling House Friday night (where a
> Chaplin song was sung):
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/6528610381/in/photostream/ > (Don and Jon singing -- I'll add the song title to > the picture when I get it from Jon).
>
> Chaplin is satirizing Hitler (who reputedly saw the > movie more than once) while Ray and Raymond
> (Raymond an MD I gather) on BBC radio are on
> the contrary lionizing the handsome Wittgenstein > -- in this proposed BBC series the secret arch
> nemesis of his old recess foe.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Chaplin#The_Great_Dictator_.281940.29 >
> Adolf teased Ludwig mercilessly we (the BBC screen- > writers) could show. Would they have to pay
> Cornish royalties? -- I'd say get him as a consultant > up front.
>
> Here's that rant (by Charlie):
>
> http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2011/12/lightning-talk.html > (set to new pictures by a current times editor)
>
> I owe it to Alex to find where I think Kimberly was > meanest to Ludwig (teased him most), but I have
> a memory of my daughter borrowing 'Jew of Linz'. > She's a huge 'House MD' fan by the way, loving
> that link.
>
> Let me book mark a paragraph of my own writing
> for future reference:
>
> ("there is no doubt that Wittgenstein and Philby > would have much to stutter about together in German") > [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6806 ] >
> -- OK found it (next morning), pg. 76:
>
> "What between Dostoevski, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Beethoven, > Prokoviev, wind instruments, Alfred Cortot's emendations > of the piano concerto Paul Wittgenstein commissioned > and Philby's fund-raising on behalf of the Austrian > Communists, there is no doubt that Wittgestein and > Philby would have had much to stutter about together > in German." -- Kimberly Cornish.
>
> Sounds like teasing to me.
>
> Another branch in this thread that I followed with the > guitar-playing Bunce is the Frankenstein story, which > he claims is the most retold (by some criterion -- more > than Jesus).
>
> I wondered if the count included like 'Rocky Horror' > which has its science-made creature, and/or all
> those cartoons that have a Dr. Evil bringing some > hulk to life, because yeah, there are definitely a lot > of those -- way more than crucifixions. He wasn't > sure what was counted.
>
> In any case, I do think there might be an element of > "we've created a monster" in the Wittgenstein story, in > that it seemed so sure he was part of the Enlightenment > movement to escape the vortex of superstition and at > last advance to our noble positive future as positively > science-minded. Optimism about the brave new
> machine-world to come was strong in pre-WW2
> Nazi PR as well.
>
> I'd say Wittgenstein was certainly science minded in > the sense Ben Franklin was, or Priestly, or Hertz. But > he wasn't into the Ism of Scientism, which I'd say is > what veered into Eugenics and spun out in the
> Hitlerian period, taking a lot of supposedly rational > people into a moral / ethical abyss. Scientism craves > the worshipful attention given authority figures, wants > to be one of those. The televangelists of the science > world, the "other" fundamentalists, are the "science" > uber alles types (re their kind of science).
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Kirby
>
> > http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/img_lib/Fred%20Gwynne%20241% > > 208-26-11.jpg
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > http://bit.ly/v5H9uI
> >> > http://bit.ly/tsiEjh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New > Topic
> Messages in this topic (5)
> Recent Activity:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on > - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >
> .
>
> __,_._,___


_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6995 is a reply to message #6994] Mon, 19 December 2011 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote: >
> You're most welcome.  I'd supposed you'd enjoy those connections. > Personally, I tend to find that sort of thing a bit fanciful - > entertaining, though I often have difficulty discerning the point.


For me part of the point is getting away from treating language as some highly restricted subset of human activities that does not include, for example, communications via television.  Because the latter is so pictorial, there's a tendency not take it seriously or simply not include it in the web of allusions and footnotes surrounding not just Wittgenstein, but philosophy more generally.  I see Wittgenstein's philo in particular as an escape hatch, a way to emerge from such a restricted view of philosophy.  I don't see myself as alone in this view.

By thinking about who Wittgenstein looks like (literally) and imagining movies or scenarios starring his likeness (e.g. a fictionalized BBC series), we're actually extending Kripke's discussions about Nixon and how proper names mean.  How do we mean Wittgenstein, how do we mean HIM?

>
> Still, I don't deny it can be interesting.  Something I've been meaning > to get to is exploring connections between Wittgenstein and Schenker > (the musicologist).  And this connects as well with seeing aspects and > with Goethe's and Wittgenstein's discussions of the urpflanze.


"In what sense does Wittgenstein's philosophy aid in our fight against tyranny?"  Even before we identify who is asking, I think the form of the question is not off base.  These questions should be asked.

Another question is "How did Wittgenstein aid in the fight against tyranny?"

I consider the greatest tyranny to be habits of thought, reflexes, unreflective responses, reactions.  Philosophy digs deep into habits of mind and overturns them, or has the potential to help one in overturning them.

Wittgenstein digs more deeply into one's relationship to the world / language than most.

Bringing these two together:  how might we learn from studying Wittgenstein to make television that overturns tyrannical habits of thought?

Even just commercials might do this.  Arthur Koestler's 'The Act of Creation' is along these lines in analyzing the power of humor.

It helps complete my psychological profile to realize I consider 'The Beatles' and 'Monty Python' to be greater expressions of UK philosophy than most of what came out subsequent to Russell on the subject of logic.  The latter became computer science (where I practice) and so-called "analytic philosophy" has become mostly sterile, self-marginalizing by choice (though with the expectation of continued job security).

Not everyone knows that George Harrison personally funded 'Life of Brian' when EMI pulled the plug (finally read the script and realized this could be an offensive movie).

>
>
> Oh, here's another odd resemblance.  Somehow, this painting of Cosmo > Kramer from "Seinfeld" reminded me of some of Wittgenstein's portraits. >
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjSRcNENN2s/TGrg2VNZEDI/AAAAAAAAAN0/pnjMpj5g6rQ/s1600/kramer800.jpg >

Very nice.  Now that you mention it, Kramer deserves to be on the list of candidates of lookalikes.

It pleases me that there's a lot of humor in this thread.

The radio show with Ray and Raymond was humorous too, given that whistle and the radio interviewer professing stupidity.  Russell's voice and his droll telling also cracked me up.  The theme of genius and madness again.  Logicomix.


>
> But more than any vague resemblance (I cannot imagine Wittgenstein with > such an expression), it reminded me of a remark he'd made in a lecture > on aesthetics, discussing a picture of a monks having a vision of the > Blessed Virgin.  Wittgenstein noted that the slightest fraction of an > inch in the rendering of the monk's mouth could turn a beatific > expression into a leer and turn a pictorial expression of piety into one > of blasphemy.
>

Yes, a study of small deltas and what they connote -- great exercise for limbering up the mind.

"Wittgenstein for TV directors" -- an area I care about.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #6996 is a reply to message #6995] Mon, 19 December 2011 15:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Han Geurdes is currently offline  Han Geurdes
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2011
Member
May I add Wittgenstein for music?

Han.
Op 19 dec. 2011 21:13 schreef "kirby urner" <kirby.urner@gmail.com> het volgende:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >
> > You're most welcome. I'd supposed you'd enjoy those connections. > > Personally, I tend to find that sort of thing a bit fanciful - > > entertaining, though I often have difficulty discerning the point. >
>
> For me part of the point is getting away from treating language as > some highly restricted subset of human activities that does not > include, for example, communications via television. Because the > latter is so pictorial, there's a tendency not take it seriously or > simply not include it in the web of allusions and footnotes > surrounding not just Wittgenstein, but philosophy more generally. I > see Wittgenstein's philo in particular as an escape hatch, a way to > emerge from such a restricted view of philosophy. I don't see myself > as alone in this view.
>
> By thinking about who Wittgenstein looks like (literally) and > imagining movies or scenarios starring his likeness (e.g. a > fictionalized BBC series), we're actually extending Kripke's > discussions about Nixon and how proper names mean. How do we mean > Wittgenstein, how do we mean HIM?
>
> >
> > Still, I don't deny it can be interesting. Something I've been meaning > > to get to is exploring connections between Wittgenstein and Schenker > > (the musicologist). And this connects as well with seeing aspects and > > with Goethe's and Wittgenstein's discussions of the urpflanze. >
>
> "In what sense does Wittgenstein's philosophy aid in our fight against > tyranny?" Even before we identify who is asking, I think the form of > the question is not off base. These questions should be asked. >
> Another question is "How did Wittgenstein aid in the fight against > tyranny?"
>
> I consider the greatest tyranny to be habits of thought, reflexes, > unreflective responses, reactions. Philosophy digs deep into habits > of mind and overturns them, or has the potential to help one in > overturning them.
>
> Wittgenstein digs more deeply into one's relationship to the world / > language than most.
>
> Bringing these two together: how might we learn from studying > Wittgenstein to make television that overturns tyrannical habits of > thought?
>
> Even just commercials might do this. Arthur Koestler's 'The Act of > Creation' is along these lines in analyzing the power of humor. >
> It helps complete my psychological profile to realize I consider 'The > Beatles' and 'Monty Python' to be greater expressions of UK philosophy > than most of what came out subsequent to Russell on the subject of > logic. The latter became computer science (where I practice) and > so-called "analytic philosophy" has become mostly sterile, > self-marginalizing by choice (though with the expectation of continued > job security).
>
> Not everyone knows that George Harrison personally funded 'Life of > Brian' when EMI pulled the plug (finally read the script and realized > this could be an offensive movie).
>
> >
> >
> > Oh, here's another odd resemblance. Somehow, this painting of Cosmo > > Kramer from "Seinfeld" reminded me of some of Wittgenstein's portraits. > >
> >
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjSRcNENN2s/TGrg2VNZEDI/AAAAAAAAAN0/pnjMpj5g6rQ/s1600/kramer800.jpg > >
>
> Very nice. Now that you mention it, Kramer deserves to be on the list > of candidates of lookalikes.
>
> It pleases me that there's a lot of humor in this thread. >
> The radio show with Ray and Raymond was humorous too, given that > whistle and the radio interviewer professing stupidity. Russell's > voice and his droll telling also cracked me up. The theme of genius > and madness again. Logicomix.
>
>
> >
> > But more than any vague resemblance (I cannot imagine Wittgenstein with > > such an expression), it reminded me of a remark he'd made in a lecture > > on aesthetics, discussing a picture of a monks having a vision of the > > Blessed Virgin. Wittgenstein noted that the slightest fraction of an > > inch in the rendering of the monk's mouth could turn a beatific > > expression into a leer and turn a pictorial expression of piety into one > > of blasphemy.
> >
>
> Yes, a study of small deltas and what they connote -- great exercise > for limbering up the mind.
>
> "Wittgenstein for TV directors" -- an area I care about. >
> Kirby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://undergroundwiki.org/pipermail/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org/attachments/20111219/6e8926d5/attachment.html> _______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7005 is a reply to message #6995] Fri, 23 December 2011 02:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Phillip DeMouy is currently offline  John Phillip DeMouy
Messages: 46
Registered: April 2011
Member
I wanted to clarify that I am no way expressing some sort of snobbery for the printed page, though I am well aware of such biases. I have no problem with the idea that political economy might be communicated through modern dance or quantum mechanics explained using hip-hop nor with the idea that philosophers might draw upon comic books or videogames for examples, scenarios, and themes that inform serious philosophical reflection. My concerns are not about media nor about high or low culture.

Rather, I wonder about the value of some efforts that seem like free association as an end in itself, finding connections, however remote, as being of value in its own right. At the extreme, it can seem like allusions - or worse, name-dropping - for its own sake. But then, I know some thinkers (notably Rorty) have praised just such rhetorical style. I question its value, though I grant it can sometimes be entertaining and even interesting, when I don't see what underlying insight such connections are meant to reveal. Of course, it's entirely possible that in some cases, the fault is my own for failing to grasp that underlying insight.

As far as some connections, specifically related to Wittgenstein, I have tremendous problems with Cornish. I realize his work has not been endorsed here but I have difficulty with such shoddy scholarship and, much worse, baseless and libelous claims, being given an airing. I have difficulty regarding it as simply an interesting, "What if?", possibilities to entertain, connections to consider.

The idea of Wittgenstein as Soviet spy offends me, not because of anti-Marxist sentiment (I recognize that Wittgenstein had an ambivalent and evolving view of Marxism and the Soviet Union, sometimes nuanced, sometimes astute, and sometimes marred by an politically naive idealism - the naivete being uncharacteristic though the idealism is not.), but because it seems completely at odds with the character of the man as I've come to think I understand it. Whatever sympathies Wittgenstein may have had for Communism, it is simply inconceivable to me that a man of his conscience and principles could commit treason again the land he had chosen as his new home, the land in which he had fond refuge from the horrible events in his native land. This kind of duplicity, choosing to become a subject and then betryaing his new country... this is not the Wittgenstein I know. No matter how sympathetic he might have been with the Soviet Union.

I also find the Cornish narrative about the private war between Hitler and Wittgenstein, I find it impossible to believe that the Fuhrer, if he held such personal animosity or even remembered Wittgenstein, would have authorized the granting of mischlinge status to the Wittgenstein family remaining in Austria. And why not make it a condition that Ludiwg voluntarily return to Austria? There's no record of any such issues in the negotiations Paul carried out.

As far as what Wittgenstein did to fight tyranny (surely aiding Stalin wouldn't qualify), I am reminded of two things, one of which was recently brought to our attention in material shared by Duncan Richter:

"Compare the tolerance that motivates relativism with Wittgenstein’s assertion to Russell that he would prefer 'by far' an organization dedicated to war and slavery to one dedicated to peace and freedom. (This assertion, however, should not be taken literally: Wittgenstein was no war-monger and even recommended letting oneself be massacred rather than taking part in hand-to-hand combat. It was apparently the complacency, and perhaps the self-righteousness, of Russell’s liberal cause that Wittgenstein objected to.)"

But also, I recall his disdain for Malcolm's remark about British "national character", and his later explanation for that disdain. Although Wittgenstein often spoke of philosophy as both a disease and a method of cure, making philosophical puzzles seem largely relevant only to the extent that one is afflicted, that incident suggests that he cherished some hope (though, characteristically, he was guarded against the potential for pretension and self-delusion in promoting this value) that such thinking as philosophy should cultivate might also influence one's thinking on matters of real consequence to the world. Such as one's responses to propoganda and journalism.

(Though it was overlooked in the years of reaction against Logical Positivism, during which that movement was caricatured as an episode of Scientism with little connection to issues outside of mathematics, logic, and science, historians have started to discuss the programmatic aims of the Vienna Circle who saw their linguistic reforms as a bulwark against the abuses and irrationalism they saw around them - and recognized as dangerous. I believe Wittgenstein shared a good deal of sympathy with such concerns, though he'd no doubt have been wary of both the simplistic view of language and rationality and of the pretense and self-importance of supposing such work could make as great difference or have as much relevance as such programmatic claims evince.)






On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:12 -0800, kirby urner wrote: >
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM, John Phillip DeMouy > <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You're most welcome. I'd supposed you'd enjoy those connections. > > Personally, I tend to find that sort of thing a bit fanciful - > > entertaining, though I often have difficulty discerning the point. >
> For me part of the point is getting away from treating language as > some highly restricted subset of human activities that does not > include, for example, communications via television. Because the > latter is so pictorial, there's a tendency not take it seriously or > simply not include it in the web of allusions and footnotes > surrounding not just Wittgenstein, but philosophy more generally. I > see Wittgenstein's philo in particular as an escape hatch, a way to > emerge from such a restricted view of philosophy. I don't see myself > as alone in this view.
>
> By thinking about who Wittgenstein looks like (literally) and > imagining movies or scenarios starring his likeness (e.g. a > fictionalized BBC series), we're actually extending Kripke's > discussions about Nixon and how proper names mean. How do we mean > Wittgenstein, how do we mean HIM?
>
> >
> > Still, I don't deny it can be interesting. Something I've been > meaning
> > to get to is exploring connections between Wittgenstein and Schenker > > (the musicologist). And this connects as well with seeing aspects > and
> > with Goethe's and Wittgenstein's discussions of the urpflanze. >
> "In what sense does Wittgenstein's philosophy aid in our fight against > tyranny?" Even before we identify who is asking, I think the form of > the question is not off base. These questions should be asked. >
> Another question is "How did Wittgenstein aid in the fight against > tyranny?"
>
> I consider the greatest tyranny to be habits of thought, reflexes, > unreflective responses, reactions. Philosophy digs deep into habits > of mind and overturns them, or has the potential to help one in > overturning them.
>
> Wittgenstein digs more deeply into one's relationship to the world / > language than most.
>
> Bringing these two together: how might we learn from studying > Wittgenstein to make television that overturns tyrannical habits of > thought?
>
> Even just commercials might do this. Arthur Koestler's 'The Act of > Creation' is along these lines in analyzing the power of humor. >
> It helps complete my psychological profile to realize I consider 'The > Beatles' and 'Monty Python' to be greater expressions of UK philosophy > than most of what came out subsequent to Russell on the subject of > logic. The latter became computer science (where I practice) and > so-called "analytic philosophy" has become mostly sterile, > self-marginalizing by choice (though with the expectation of continued > job security).
>
> Not everyone knows that George Harrison personally funded 'Life of > Brian' when EMI pulled the plug (finally read the script and realized > this could be an offensive movie).
>
> >
> >
> > Oh, here's another odd resemblance. Somehow, this painting of Cosmo > > Kramer from "Seinfeld" reminded me of some of Wittgenstein's > portraits.
> >
> >
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fjSRcNENN2s/TGrg2VNZEDI/AAAAAAAAAN0/pnjMpj5g6rQ/s1600/kramer800.jpg > >
>
> Very nice. Now that you mention it, Kramer deserves to be on the list > of candidates of lookalikes.
>
> It pleases me that there's a lot of humor in this thread. >
> The radio show with Ray and Raymond was humorous too, given that > whistle and the radio interviewer professing stupidity. Russell's > voice and his droll telling also cracked me up. The theme of genius > and madness again. Logicomix.
>
> >
> > But more than any vague resemblance (I cannot imagine Wittgenstein > with
> > such an expression), it reminded me of a remark he'd made in a > lecture
> > on aesthetics, discussing a picture of a monks having a vision of > the
> > Blessed Virgin. Wittgenstein noted that the slightest fraction of > an
> > inch in the rendering of the monk's mouth could turn a beatific > > expression into a leer and turn a pictorial expression of piety into > one
> > of blasphemy.
> >
>
> Yes, a study of small deltas and what they connote -- great exercise > for limbering up the mind.
>
> "Wittgenstein for TV directors" -- an area I care about. >
> Kirby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New > Topic
> Messages in this topic (7)
> Recent Activity:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on > - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >
> .
>
> __,_._,___


_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7006 is a reply to message #7005] Fri, 23 December 2011 16:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote:

<...>

> The idea of Wittgenstein as Soviet spy offends me, not because of > anti-Marxist sentiment (I recognize that Wittgenstein had an ambivalent > and evolving view of Marxism and the Soviet Union, sometimes nuanced, > sometimes astute, and sometimes marred by an politically naive idealism > - the naivete being uncharacteristic though the idealism is not.), but > because it seems completely at odds with the character of the man as > I've come to think I understand it.  Whatever sympathies Wittgenstein > may have had for Communism, it is simply inconceivable to me that a man > of his conscience and principles could commit treason again the land he > had chosen as his new home, the land in which he had fond refuge from > the horrible events in his native land.  This kind of duplicity, > choosing to become a subject and then betryaing his new country... this > is not the Wittgenstein I know.  No matter how sympathetic he might have > been with the Soviet Union.
>

<< pause tape >>

So this is where I'd have this like Monty Python sketch, with this poor slob actually tasked to screen write the blasted thing.

Cornish is flying in from Australia, voodoo doc in tow to prove some point, and you're supposed to have Draft 1 in PowerPoint by next Thursday. Expectations are high...

You barely heard of Wittgenstein except on the radio that time, with Ray and Raymond (confusing, one a doctor), and now your career depends on...

You quick got the DVD and saw this kid with Nabil playing a Martian. The radio guys said the emperor *did* where clothes, so you picked up 'Investigations...'. "Doesn't sound like a spy to me" was your first reaction.

<< knock knock >>

"Yes, come in".

"I'm here to tell you about Wittgenstein, and to tell you, if you dare besmirch the reputation of..."

And on it goes. You're like this DiCaprio type, really still young, no personal memory of the Cold War the way they tell it. You did read a few spy novels.

<< knock knock >>

OK, my turn. I walk in...

"You need to work backwards from the present, and so have a knowing telling that makes Wittgenstein a hero, no matter what.

Nationalism is rampant, and Einstein knows it's crazy. They ask him to be "President of Israel" while Hoover tries to "build a file" -- it's like nutcase and he (Albert) says no, but he knows people deserve a place in the sun (away from death camps), and he doesn't mind
being a Jewish guy love, instead of hate for a change. Pretty brave. Princeton is proud.

"So no, we don't make Wittgenstein a "communist" or a "Stalinist". That's stupid people talk. He's just trying to help the world from blowing itself up, and the stupid Americans are like flying U2s right over the motherland, no wonder Gary defected in protest, helped stage that ruse, and like...

<< pause >>

"Excuse me sir, that's all way in the future, we're talking about Stalin, not the Eisenhower administration and the soon-to-be staged showdown with Khrushchev, derailed by the Gary Powers incident."

Me: oh, duh, yeah, but I mean, we're working backward. Wittgenstein knew the UK was mentally ill beyond
repair probably, but the Americas were still somewhat healthy, had antibodies.... (like '12 Monkeys' with Brad Pitt, except mental?)

"Anyway, time's up, I see what you mean about a lot of crazy interviews.

Good luck with that screenwriting."

Urner leaves.

<< DiCaprio to himself (and looking much older all of a sudden).... "I'm never gonna get this right..." >>

Laugh track.

Fade out.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7009 is a reply to message #6994] Wed, 28 December 2011 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote: > You're most welcome.  I'd supposed you'd enjoy those connections. > Personally, I tend to find that sort of thing a bit fanciful - > entertaining, though I often have difficulty discerning the point. > Still, I don't deny it can be interesting.  Something I've been meaning > to get to is exploring connections between Wittgenstein and Schenker > (the musicologist).  And this connects as well with seeing aspects and > with Goethe's and Wittgenstein's discussions of the urpflanze.

I think if we indulge Cornish for 10 seconds and admit to some unowned consciousness without an object, that wo/men might somehow channel and/or manipulate (the point of the voodoo doctor in his book), then it'd make some sense to have these Ouija Board like parlor games, somewhat Victorian in conception, wherein people freely associate in the manner of Freudians in some attempt to capture new information (like a seance in a way, but without the spiritualism -- secular humanists won't feel so stupid playing it, unlike Twister...).

We might call these Glass Bead Game players the "liberals" as in Vienna Circle, but they're also speaking in tongues we might say (looking for bridges to like Palin's subculture). Liberal Vienna is a source of many of our values as liberal arts practitioners, a sensibility that spills over into the "liberated software" movement (software libre) ala Richard Stallman, one of the great American philosopher / logicians, and pragmatic to boot.

Jumping from Wittgenstein to the actors who might play him, as has already been done for Nixon, most recently in this DiCaprio film 'J. Edgar', is a way to get the juices flowing, with the theme being monsters, freaks (shall we say).

There's a comedic aspect to freakdom, which connects to the recruiting function, as in you start yearning to join. You wish to run off and join the circus. In the circus, we celebrate freaks.

So in what sense was Wittgenstein, sometimes homeless, sometimes unemployed, but by choice a volunteer in hospitals, a soldier in war, *not* a freak?

"He already knew the inside of great wealth." I could see telling my own story that way. There's a Buddha-like aspect to such narratives -- how a privileged child comes to suffering, by leaving the castle grounds.

In middle school, our family apartment had been occupied by movie stars before us (Rod Steiger they say, star of Illustrated Man, story by Ray Bradbury), in a swank neighbor- hood in Rome, Viale Parioli. I was already living that lifestyle, young and well provided for, immersed in high culture, learning history from none other than Mrs. Fabris at the Overseas School of Rome. So privileged.

So Hitler woulda hated me too, no doubt, plus my nose is on the Roman side. Musso mighta liked me, hard to know.

Such mythic projections of oneself into the past, shaking hands with Michelangelo are about is meaningful as "would Wittgenstein have liked Ray Monk?". In what parallel universe? Does LW have a Facebook page or does he disapprove of our Prineville-based service? Would Wittgenstein have liked YouTube? I'll say "yes, most definitely".

Would he have have read his own biography? Would he and Monk at least be Facebook friends? Are they
"frienemies"?

And yet we think such questions are quite easy to ask. Writing answers leads to science fiction of intricate complexity though.

Perhaps today's Wittgenstein is a system architect for Facebook as he knows "language games" like few others.

Back to Herman Munster and the Frankenstein story: over on mathfuture, more puzzle pieces surfaced as the Ouija Game continued to play out.

The Shelleys, mother and daughter. The rising role of women. The importance of women in furthering science and technology.

Ada Byron, and my defense of her reputation versus New Yorker character assassin.

Madam Curie.

Another trajectory is humor and its place in philosophy.

To what extent is "humorless philosophy" oxymoronic? Wittgenstein on jokes. Arthur Koestler: The Act of Creation.

'Monty Python' and 'The Beatles' continue the best of UK philosophy in some threads. What we'll remember the English for in the 1900s (a dark age).

The former did training films on economics that were shown at Caltech back in the day, before economics was considered a science. I want to track those down.

I was just learning this history from Steve Mastin today, a Caltech alum, a contemporary of George Hammond,
deserved a Nobel Prize.

The late George's wife Eve Menger is the daughter of Vienna Circle member Karl Menger, whose work I draw upon quite liberally in my writing, including recently over at Math Forum:

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2327345&tstart=0

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7010 is a reply to message #7009] Wed, 28 December 2011 20:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
> I was just learning this history from Steve Mastin today, > a Caltech alum, a contemporary of George Hammond, > deserved a Nobel Prize.
>

Just to clarify: Steve was saying how Hammond deserved the prize. He's quite humbly self-effacing himself, yet had a front row seat in bio-engineering. Describes himself as "a dilettante" so as not to seem too pretentious. He's definitely a wanderer.

http://www.isepp.org/Pages/ISEPP%20Pages/Wanderers/Wanderers01.html

Hammond and Eve started attending meetings at the
Linus Pauling House, which is how I met them. I'd already been quoting Karl (Eve's dad) prior to making this connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Hammond

http://coffeeshopsnet.blogspot.com/2009/03/res-extensa.html

More in my blogs...

Kirby

PS: still reading that new Wittgenstein book I was reviewing, wherein the motto of the PI is of core focus all of a sudden. Didn't see that coming.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WittrsEX/message/4660

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7012 is a reply to message #6993] Sat, 31 December 2011 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:

<< ... >>

> Adolf teased Ludwig mercilessly we (the BBC screen- > writers) could show.  Would they have to pay
> Cornish royalties? -- I'd say get him as a consultant > up front.
>

Continuing with the idea of a fictionalized made-for-TV movie of LW's life based in part on the lets say dubious, -- yet good for storytelling -- scholarship of K. Cornish.

It's expected that the show will generate debate and be seen as fiction, give more philosophers a chance to come out of the woodwork and share views.

> I owe it to Alex to find where I think Kimberly was > meanest to Ludwig (teased him most), but I have
> a memory of my daughter borrowing 'Jew of Linz'. > She's a huge 'House MD' fan by the way, loving
> that link.
>

She hadn't borrowed it -- she's borrowed others.

> "What between Dostoevski, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Beethoven, > Prokoviev, wind instruments, Alfred Cortot's emendations > of the piano concerto Paul Wittgenstein commissioned > and Philby's fund-raising on behalf of the Austrian > Communists, there is no doubt that Wittgestein and > Philby would have had much to stutter about together > in German." -- Kimberly Cornish.
>
> Sounds like teasing to me.
>

This quoted passage by Cornish is a speculative
rendering of what it would sound like when his two master betrayers of Special Branch, the latter
somewhat penetrated by Crowley but not too bad,
sounded like when they got together. Some kind
of high bandwidth, high culture German.

I'm thinking "Austrian Communists" rhymes for
Cornish with those people Hemingway was helping
by narrating that movie about the Fascists' aerial bombing of Spain. Hitler and Musso had teamed
up already, but the USA was still busy admiring
Musso, thinking Fascism might be the way to go
(Business Plot etc.). The UK and USA both have
strong Fascist tendencies and it was common to
demonize those fighting Franco's dictatorship as
anti Special Branch or British intelligence or some such fiction (MI-whatever).

We might do a quick back story set in Ethiopia,
time of Halie Selassie, and how the Brits were like "welcome to the club" when the Italians invaded.
Pointedly, it was the Russians who returned the
obelisk from Rome, where Musso had taken it.
The British Museum is still full of lots of stolen stuff, their imperialist tendencies still not really in check.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/britain-imperial-echoes-ruinous-wars

I found a great actor in 'Rocket Science' who
plays a stuttering boy with some social inadequacies. Here's not uber richie rich, like the Wittgensteins' kid (they didn't spoil him though). But then there's the question of how far to Americanize the cast.

Perhaps a theater piece or two to warm up would
take more of the pressure off our poor BBC guy,
still doing those interviews. A screenplay about
Wittgenstein's childhood, wherein Hitler also appears. That could be a writing assignment for any number
of theater students, could it not? Could be comical.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7013 is a reply to message #7012] Sat, 31 December 2011 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Han Geurdes is currently offline  Han Geurdes
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2011
Member
Indeed. Perhaps raising questions about language that provide 'reasons to die for'.... Uebermensch and that kind of stuff.

However, would your LW have liked all this ??
Op 31 dec. 2011 19:32 schreef "kirby urner" <kirby.urner@gmail.com> het volgende:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> << ... >>
>
> > Adolf teased Ludwig mercilessly we (the BBC screen- > > writers) could show. Would they have to pay
> > Cornish royalties? -- I'd say get him as a consultant > > up front.
> >
>
> Continuing with the idea of a fictionalized made-for-TV > movie of LW's life based in part on the lets say dubious, > -- yet good for storytelling -- scholarship of K. Cornish. >
> It's expected that the show will generate debate and > be seen as fiction, give more philosophers a chance to > come out of the woodwork and share views.
>
> > I owe it to Alex to find where I think Kimberly was > > meanest to Ludwig (teased him most), but I have > > a memory of my daughter borrowing 'Jew of Linz'. > > She's a huge 'House MD' fan by the way, loving > > that link.
> >
>
> She hadn't borrowed it -- she's borrowed others. >
> > "What between Dostoevski, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Beethoven, > > Prokoviev, wind instruments, Alfred Cortot's emendations > > of the piano concerto Paul Wittgenstein commissioned > > and Philby's fund-raising on behalf of the Austrian > > Communists, there is no doubt that Wittgestein and > > Philby would have had much to stutter about together > > in German." -- Kimberly Cornish.
> >
> > Sounds like teasing to me.
> >
>
> This quoted passage by Cornish is a speculative
> rendering of what it would sound like when his two > master betrayers of Special Branch, the latter
> somewhat penetrated by Crowley but not too bad,
> sounded like when they got together. Some kind
> of high bandwidth, high culture German.
>
> I'm thinking "Austrian Communists" rhymes for
> Cornish with those people Hemingway was helping
> by narrating that movie about the Fascists' aerial > bombing of Spain. Hitler and Musso had teamed
> up already, but the USA was still busy admiring
> Musso, thinking Fascism might be the way to go
> (Business Plot etc.). The UK and USA both have
> strong Fascist tendencies and it was common to
> demonize those fighting Franco's dictatorship as > anti Special Branch or British intelligence or some > such fiction (MI-whatever).
>
> We might do a quick back story set in Ethiopia,
> time of Halie Selassie, and how the Brits were like > "welcome to the club" when the Italians invaded. > Pointedly, it was the Russians who returned the
> obelisk from Rome, where Musso had taken it.
> The British Museum is still full of lots of stolen > stuff, their imperialist tendencies still not really > in check.
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/britain-imperial-echoes-ruinous-wars >
> I found a great actor in 'Rocket Science' who
> plays a stuttering boy with some social inadequacies. > Here's not uber richie rich, like the Wittgensteins' > kid (they didn't spoil him though). But then there's > the question of how far to Americanize the cast. >
> Perhaps a theater piece or two to warm up would
> take more of the pressure off our poor BBC guy,
> still doing those interviews. A screenplay about > Wittgenstein's childhood, wherein Hitler also appears. > That could be a writing assignment for any number > of theater students, could it not? Could be comical. >
> Kirby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://undergroundwiki.org/pipermail/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org/attachments/20111231/2149ea92/attachment.html> _______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7014 is a reply to message #7013] Sat, 31 December 2011 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed. Perhaps raising questions about language that provide 'reasons to > die for'.... Uebermensch and that kind of stuff. >
> However, would your LW have liked all this ??

Dunno, was meditating earlier on what that might mean. In what parallel universe? I imagined him a contemporary, working in Prineville, OR, helping people social engineer.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7015 is a reply to message #7014] Sat, 31 December 2011 15:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Han Geurdes is currently offline  Han Geurdes
Messages: 40
Registered: May 2011
Member
Well Kirby,

Perhaps, perhaps. In any case I like your approach! Have a good 2012!

One Universe is already difficult enough. I agree! Op 31 dec. 2011 20:35 schreef "kirby urner" <kirby.urner@gmail.com> het volgende:

> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Indeed. Perhaps raising questions about language that provide 'reasons to > > die for'.... Uebermensch and that kind of stuff. > >
> > However, would your LW have liked all this ??
>
> Dunno, was meditating earlier on what that might mean. In what > parallel universe? I imagined him a contemporary, working in > Prineville, OR, helping people social engineer.
>
> Kirby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://undergroundwiki.org/pipermail/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org/attachments/20111231/efb0c34b/attachment.html> _______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7016 is a reply to message #7015] Sun, 01 January 2012 22:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@gmail.com> wrote: > Well Kirby,
>
> Perhaps, perhaps. In any case I like your approach! Have a good 2012! >
> One Universe is already difficult enough. I agree!

Hey thanks.

It's been coming together more for me.

'Titanic' is an influence in that you start in "modern times" with this somewhat classless (socially) caste of engineers. They speak crassly, as technologists, the Morlocks of our day.

Then we fade to the highly classist more tea cuppy Victorian world of the Titanic's maiden voyage, where, in this made-for-TV production, we substitute Wittgenstein's Vienna and Russell's England for the 'Titanic' set and caste (which featured a younger DiCaprio -- sorry if I was using two p's earlier in this thread).

We may end in Ithaca, New York (I'm thinking to skip any "death bed" scene -- though we may show the grave site, zooming in using Google Earth in present time).

In our day, a young woman engineer at the Prineville, OR facility (based on this real world Facebook data center) drives around in a somewhat desolate environment, wanders among cliffs, having these visions / insights that make her a chief engineer, but also a candidate for some reincarnation hypothesis, never explicitly proposed let alone proved (thinking of the movie 'My Reincarnation' recently reviewed in my blogs [1]).

But we give her some of the same qualities, of intensity, sometimes sharpness and impatience, and a strong propensity to spend time alone, walking in nature or scribbling on paper, punching keys, looking at networks and long scrolls of cryptic symbols -- she's doing philosophy in other words (applied to world gaming enterprises (WGE might be the company?)).

Having this setting is useful for occasionally jumping us out of the story and moving to present day, where the mobile devices, laptops and desktops have entirely transformed what we mean by "language", with system architecture and design never more consciously under human control as in this Internet age. It's the age of the icon like never before.

In explaining the significance of Wittgenstein's philosophy, we sometimes want to flash forward to this data center (somewhat austere), where literal "games" flash and blink on the screens, people pouring over them intently.

Come to think of it, our data center is a combination of Facebook and like some tribal casino: language at work (not idling).

Then we jump back to Continental philosophy and the period between those two wars, and the beginnings of logic and computer programming. They didn't know they were giving birth to computer programming (Leibniz, Pascal and Ada maybe did, at different times), but we know that with hindsight. Software encodes business rules these days, as well as legislation. Sophia gave birth, to yet another child wonder.

Given our premise that Wittgenstein is a hero, is effective, and is playing to win, his service to Russian intelligence has to be portrayed as anti tyrannical and anti fascist.

In terms of his encouraging young men to stand up against these evils, we have no PR problem there. Hemingway was doing the same thing. The Spanish Civil War was a front and the "good guys" (lots of women) were standing up against Hitler and Musso.

Wittgenstein was one of them in spirit.

<< Picasso's Guernica.

More language, with sudden silence for sound?

Perhaps between shots of bombers overhead, sirens. >>

The cast should feature some American pilots who've been friends with the Russians against Third Reich Eugencis (ethnic cleansing) and don't end those friendships with the rise of our more Total Information Awareness type society complete with wiretaps and bugs (Cold War beginnings) and now web cams and social network monitoring tools.

We could loosely base a character on Man X from the movie 'JFK', implying they're somehow the same figure, only this time we're looking at a Russian-American affiliation.

Actually no, same problem as my interview with the BBC dude: I'm in the wrong time period, thinking about U2 Gary Powers, Eisenhower, and the dismantling of FDR's bold experiment with strong government. Per RBF's telling, the lawyer-capitalist mindset rolled it back to create the global Grunch of Giants we today associate with the corporate personhood / soullessness and the debates about legal fictions and their role in governance. [2][3]

But we need that arc to keep Wittgenstein somewhat prescient and heroic. He was better than most at thinking outside the box and was not sucked in by the ideologies of his day.

His being on the side of the Russians, cast in this light, is relatively benign in that he's seeing the same "withering of the state" we are, in some globalizing grunchy zeitgeist, and he's willing to help nurse some new kind of global network of intelligence community personnel, somewhat distinct from academia, with its own titles and awards (the willingness to live among those under study, sometimes in hardship situations, is not everyone's cup of tea).

It's his crossing this line that gets our focus in this TV show, less the judgment of "British subjects" whom we see as still stuck in an obsolete mindset (more tainted with Roman imperialism). There's a "beyond good and evil" aspect to his work.

The tone is somewhat like in the movie 'Beautiful Mind' (might be a few jokes there), except Wittgenstein would be less like the confused John Nash character (Russell Crowe) and more like the self confidant Parcher character (Ed Harris).

The last puzzle piece (or one of the last) is Beltaine and Frazer's Golden Bough.... (Whitney has more flash
backs and visions).

What our Wittgenstein despises is scapegoating, witch hunting, demonizing. He's prototypically open source in his "everything is in plain view" approach to philosophy. He's not trying to keep a lot of secrets so much as induce aspect shifts, gestalts switches, new ways of looking in he's readers. He sees himself as a catalyst to that end.

He sees bewitchment by means of language, the spells it casts, as keeping humans in a thralldom it needn't accept. Prisoners of their own minds, of their own straitjacketing superstitions. Poor slobs. Misanthropy is a chief occupational hazard, usually projected at specific "bad guys" (e.g "bankers") by the scapegoaters.

Someday, a more advanced ethnicity (as if from Mars -- tip of the hat to Nabil's character) will free itself from this clap trap. He hopes he's helped show the way.

Kirby

Notes:
[1] http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-reincarnation-movie-review.html [2] http://www.prouty.org/dulles.html
[3] http://bit.ly/uKv672

File for later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duckrabbit.jpg

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Would Wittgenstein Have Liked Ray Monk? [message #7023 is a reply to message #7016] Sat, 07 January 2012 02:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:

<< snip >>

> Given our premise that Wittgenstein is a hero, is effective, and > is playing to win, his service to Russian intelligence has to be > portrayed as anti tyrannical and anti fascist.
>

I'm introducing the theme of Wittgenstein's feelings of alienation regarding UK culture over on MathFuture, where we've been discussing an invitation to investigate "ethnography and mathematics" at the British Museum itself.

http://groups.google.com/group/mathfuture/msg/dbdae847acf25e66?hl=en

> In terms of his encouraging young men to stand up against > these evils, we have no PR problem there.  Hemingway was > doing the same thing.  The Spanish Civil War was a front and > the "good guys" (lots of women) were standing up against > Hitler and Musso.
>
> Wittgenstein was one of them in spirit.

<< snip >>

> The last puzzle piece (or one of the last) is Beltaine and > Frazer's Golden Bough.... (Whitney has more flash > backs and visions).
>

Re Beltaine etc.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/7055

Cornish and Wittgenstein have this in common: they resent the trivialization of "magic" in terms of facile scientistic explanations.


Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
[Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7028 is a reply to message #7023] Mon, 09 January 2012 16:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Phillip DeMouy is currently offline  John Phillip DeMouy
Messages: 46
Registered: April 2011
Member
Given Sean's interest in Originalism and Kirby's interest in tying Wittgenstein in with Progressive politics, I wanted to bring up an issue of ordinary language and politics current today.

The Occupy/99 percent movement, while loosely organized, are emphasizing two points that I would think congenial - or at least worth considering - for the philosopher of ordinary language: 1.) Money is not speech and 2.) Corporations are not people.

These would seem like truisms but are clearly at variance with the law and Supreme Court rulings. And taking them seriously would have significant consequences to our civic life.

I'm rather ill right now and not up to further analysis but I throw this out there hoping to see some discussion given that the issues seem pertinent to concerns of those here. (I'd also wish it noted that my objections to the Cornish narrative in no way indicate a hostility to progressivism or a wish to avoid politics altogether.)

Discuss...


>


_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7029 is a reply to message #7028] Tue, 10 January 2012 04:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote: > Given Sean's interest in Originalism and Kirby's interest in tying > Wittgenstein in with Progressive politics, I wanted to bring up an issue > of ordinary language and politics current today. >

Yes, I'm OK saying I'm doing some kind of "tying" there, or dot connecting.

My focus has been more an investigation of how shaping meanings involves gestalts and psychological factors. I often mention advertising, Pepsi in particular (as an example). "Pepsi" doesn't just mean some dark colored sweet tasting carbonated beverage. No, it's "the choice of a new generation" etc.

I then intimate at a "political" dimension to PR / propaganda / advertising (nothing new), such as by liking Pepsi to the Obama campaign of 2008, as many do (Google images: pepsi obama)

But lets link to Occupy for a moment:

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope

A preoccupation with art / propaganda leads me to ethnography and to Wittgenstein's griping about British ethnocentrism ala Frazer etc.

Why is what "they" believe considered "superstitious" next to what "we" believe? Wittgenstein uses that for some fondly cherished "philosophical" notions. And how is the play of brands and the "corporate persons" for which they stand not a form of spell-binding, bewitchment or magic?

Aspect-blindness, not seeing one's own conditioning for what it is; philosophy helps develop our self-awareness, which is world-awareness.

What would it mean if have the moon, in its darkest phase (no sunlight reflected) were suddenly illuminated for 30 seconds by a high powered color laser doing a raster-like trace, showing the Pepsi logo brightly reflecting across its entire face?

So many would be horrified by such a stunt. I'm not encouraging it. I'm just saying, by such memories in time are meanings molded.

> The Occupy/99 percent movement, while loosely organized, are emphasizing > two points that I would think congenial - or at least worth considering > - for the philosopher of ordinary language: 1.) Money is not speech and > 2.) Corporations are not people.
>
> These would seem like truisms but are clearly at variance with the law > and Supreme Court rulings.  And taking them seriously would have > significant consequences to our civic life.
>

I wonder why, in the Anglophone culture of North America, we don't have philosophers stepping forward to say much of anything about anything.

When was the last time you saw a philosopher quoted on TV. Economists? All the time.

They're a back room culture, these philosophers, whereas pundits and politicians are eager to get in front of the cameras and give us the benefit of their views.

Is the quality of public debate so poor because philosophy has crumbled, thereby surrendering its keystone position within the trivium / quadrivium? Is philosophy taken seriously anymore? By anyone?

If I do a literature search, am I going to find large numbers of people who consider themselves philosophers writing essays about "corporate personhood" and what it means?

Do we have any philosophers of that nature? Just curious.

> I'm rather ill right now and not up to further analysis but I throw this > out there hoping to see some discussion given that the issues seem > pertinent to concerns of those here.  (I'd also wish it noted that my > objections to the Cornish narrative in no way indicate a hostility to > progressivism or a wish to avoid politics altogether.) >
> Discuss...
>

I'd be eager for more discussion and thank you for proposing this thread.

I wish you better health and leeway to jump in yourself at some point.

I'm pretty familiar with my own thinking and could spiel on at length, but is there going to be a real conversation?

Rather than be redundant, I should be more on the quiet side I think, at least for awhile, and see where others want to go with this.

Thanks again,

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7030 is a reply to message #7029] Tue, 10 January 2012 06:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Phillip DeMouy is currently offline  John Phillip DeMouy
Messages: 46
Registered: April 2011
Member
I'd be remiss not to mention a philosopher you've brought up from time to time. He likely won't be found in any anthologies of contemporary philosophy and it wouldn't surprise me to discover you and I to be the only people who are fans of both him and Wittgenstein (Our commonalities are one reason I've been tempered in my reaction to the Cornish stuff, though it makes me livid.) but Richard Stallman - known simply as rms among the cognescenti - is a philosopher likely to discuss such issues.

Certainly he's challenged the fatuous language of "intellectual property" that has infiltrated our culture, language which blurs issues of copyright, patent, and trademark (encouraging such inanity as "software patents", which the Europeans rightly continue to reject) but, more insidiously, links these government granted temporary monopolies to the language of fundamental rights. Even though such promoters of the right to property as Jefferson nevertheless took, e.g. copyright, as being justified only to the extent that the public at large benefited from such laws more than they were inconvenienced by them. And Jefferson believed that calculus could change, as I would say it has given current technology, though instead copyright continues to be expanded and extended, benefiting corporations (a connection) more than creators.

Discussions of corporate personhood are few and far between in analytic philosophy and the chances are good that any discussion you're likely to find will relate to Hegel's social and political philosophy. More tangential would be discussions in analytic philosophy of the philosophy of the social sciences and issues of methodological individualism and holism, analyses of social wholes are units of explanation in theories of the social sciences. Popper, not coincidentally a fierce critic of Hegel, is a common starting point here.

A few more remarks...

On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 01:03 -0800, kirby urner wrote: >
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, John Phillip DeMouy > <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given Sean's interest in Originalism and Kirby's interest in tying > > Wittgenstein in with Progressive politics, I wanted to bring up an > issue
> > of ordinary language and politics current today. > >
>
> Yes, I'm OK saying I'm doing some kind of "tying" there, or dot > connecting.
>
> My focus has been more an investigation of how shaping meanings > involves gestalts and psychological factors. I often mention > advertising, Pepsi in particular (as an example). "Pepsi" doesn't > just mean some dark colored sweet tasting carbonated beverage. No, > it's "the choice of a new generation" etc.
>
> I then intimate at a "political" dimension to PR / propaganda / > advertising (nothing new), such as by liking Pepsi to the Obama > campaign of 2008, as many do (Google images: pepsi obama) >

Pepsi's cloyingly sweet and I suspect that the only reason for the "Pepsi challenge" phenomenon - where people who are loyal Coca-Cola drinkers choose Pepsi in blind taste tests - is that they are comparing sips, where the excessive sweetness isn't as annoying, rather than a whole can. The only cola I drink is Coca-Cola bottled in Mexico and available at bodegas (or, when in Europe, the Coke bottled in the Middle East and available at falafel stands) which, like the Coke only bottled in the US during Passover (when Ashkenazi Jews cannot consume corn products), is made with real sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. It has more of a "burn" and a cleaner mouth feel. It doesn't coat the mouth the way the regular Coke does. When they brought back the "original" formula after the "New Coke" fiasco, they'd replaced sugar with the corn syrup. (Cheap because of corn subsidies.)

No doubt image and advertising should not be underestimated. But whatever my political sympathies, my personal style, and so forth, "Pepsi" remains the name of a beverage I dislike.

I think we need to distinguish the meaning of the word from the associations the word and its referent may have. (Frege, noted for his distinction between sense and reference, also distinguished between both of these and the various idiosyncratic images and associations connected with a word.)



> But lets link to Occupy for a moment:
>
> http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope
>
> A preoccupation with art / propaganda leads me to ethnography and to > Wittgenstein's griping about British ethnocentrism ala Frazer etc. >

Be careful with expressions like "British ethnocentrism". If it means "ethnocentrism such as displayed by some British as well as others," that's quite harmless. But the issues with which you've connected it suggest you don't simply mean that. You should recall Wittgenstein's irritation with Malcolm's remarks about "national character" (and again, this connects with corporate personhood via the issue of ascribing personality traits to groups). I doubt Wittgenstein's point was only that Malcom shouldn't ascribe virtues to nations as a whole. Ascribing vices to them is equally problematic.

> Why is what "they" believe considered "superstitious" next to what > "we" believe? Wittgenstein uses that for some fondly cherished > "philosophical" notions. And how is the play of brands and the > "corporate persons" for which they stand not a form of spell-binding, > bewitchment or magic?
>

I'm getting all the connections you're making here except the link to corporate persons. It seems to me that the fetishism (in the anthropological sense) surrounding brands aims to distance consumers from awareness of the corporate entity. While the traditional idea of "brand loyalty" encouraged seeing the corporation as a person - one with whom the consumer had a relationship, felt a sense of trust, and so forth - the marketing of brand image seems to me actually to subvert that. The product is a vehicle for the consumer's image and aspirations and peer group identification, a means of "self-expression", rather than expressing a relationship with the manufacturers. Or so it seems to me at any rate. It's interesting to note how different products are marketed. Insurance companies, who seem to be doing some of the most creative advertising recently, are emphasizing personal relationships, with memorable spokespeople (or animals or cartoons). Some beer is marketed by appealing to image and "lifestyle" but others focus on the people making the beer, the craft, the tradition. Of course, being someone who is a "discerning" beer drinker is also a vehicle for "self-expression", but the relationship with the brewer is emphasized. The major soft drink makers aren't doing that.

> Aspect-blindness, not seeing one's own conditioning for what it is;

Are you equating these two things? That strikes me as mistaken, though perhaps you could elaborate.

Seeing only one aspect - being able to see an image in only one way - might be connected with an inability to recognize one's conditioning. But that's quite different from aspect blindness. And conditioning doesn't seem to play a significant role in the paradigmatic examples of seeing an aspect, though one might be conditioned to always use a picture in a particular way and thus to be "blind" (though this is not what Wittgenstein meant with his discussion of "aspect blindness", a hypothetical phenomenon rather than something he took to be pervasive) to other ways of seeing.

> philosophy helps develop our self-awareness, which is world-awareness. >
> What would it mean if have the moon, in its darkest phase (no sunlight > reflected) were suddenly illuminated for 30 seconds by a high powered > color laser doing a raster-like trace, showing the Pepsi logo brightly > reflecting across its entire face?
>

I don't understand the question.

> So many would be horrified by such a stunt. I'm not encouraging it. > I'm just saying, by such memories in time are meanings molded. >

Again, I point to the Fergean distinction I mentioned earlier.

> > The Occupy/99 percent movement, while loosely organized, are > emphasizing
> > two points that I would think congenial - or at least worth > considering
> > - for the philosopher of ordinary language: 1.) Money is not speech > and
> > 2.) Corporations are not people.
> >
> > These would seem like truisms but are clearly at variance with the > law
> > and Supreme Court rulings. And taking them seriously would have > > significant consequences to our civic life.
> >
>
> I wonder why, in the Anglophone culture of North America, we don't > have philosophers stepping forward to say much of anything about > anything.

There is your fellow Rorty student, Cornell West. And Chomsky, of course. But the participation of philosophers in civic life is relatively rare here, in contrast with the situation in France. Or even the UK.

>
> When was the last time you saw a philosopher quoted on TV. > Economists? All the time.
>

I've seen West and Chomsky quoted on cable news programs in recent memory. And on PBS, it's not uncommon. Popper gets quoted in relation to George Soros. Still, economists are much more likely to be quoted. Speaking of which, I caught a passing reference to Hayek on a news program just this weekend, though being both a philosopher and an economist...

> They're a back room culture, these philosophers, whereas pundits and > politicians are eager to get in front of the cameras and give us the > benefit of their views.
>

This is actually a topic Larry, Walt, and I have discussed a bit privately. I'm not sure if society would benefit but I suspect philosophy would suffer from a more public face.

> Is the quality of public debate so poor because philosophy has > crumbled, thereby surrendering its keystone position within the > trivium / quadrivium? Is philosophy taken seriously anymore? By > anyone?
>
> If I do a literature search, am I going to find large numbers of > people who consider themselves philosophers writing essays about > "corporate personhood" and what it means?
>
> Do we have any philosophers of that nature? Just curious. >
> > I'm rather ill right now and not up to further analysis but I throw > this
> > out there hoping to see some discussion given that the issues seem > > pertinent to concerns of those here. (I'd also wish it noted that > my
> > objections to the Cornish narrative in no way indicate a hostility > to
> > progressivism or a wish to avoid politics altogether.) > >
> > Discuss...
> >
>
> I'd be eager for more discussion and thank you for proposing this > thread.
>
> I wish you better health and leeway to jump in yourself at some point. >

Thanks.

> I'm pretty familiar with my own thinking and could spiel on at length, > but is there going to be a real conversation?
>
> Rather than be redundant, I should be more on the quiet side I think, > at least for awhile, and see where others want to go with this. >

I hope others will comment as well.


> Thanks again,

Thank you.

Take care,

John



>
> Kirby
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org >
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New > Topic
> Messages in this topic (20)
> Recent Activity:
> Visit Your Group
> MARKETPLACE
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on > - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >
> .
>
> __,_._,___


_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7031 is a reply to message #7030] Tue, 10 January 2012 16:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:04 AM, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd be remiss not to mention a philosopher you've brought up from time > to time.  He likely won't be found in any anthologies of contemporary > philosophy and it wouldn't surprise me to discover you and I to be the > only people who are fans of both him and Wittgenstein (Our commonalities > are one reason I've been tempered in my reaction to the Cornish stuff, > though it makes me livid.) but Richard Stallman - known simply as rms > among the cognescenti - is a philosopher likely to discuss such issues. >

Thanks for serving it back and having Stallman in the packet, a part of the payload.

Yes he's a great philosopher around the turn of the millennium (also a blog character in my writing).

What the analytics are cowering about, in my estimation, is the true worth of his logic, his emacs with extensions in LISP, is GNU C-compiler, things he worked on slavishly, not as a wannabe rhetoritician, but as an engineer. Wittgenstein unsettles in this way as well, coming from liberal Vienna and interested in science, Boltzmann, Hertz, starting out in Manchester (right?) in a "machine world", only coming to academe (gowns, funny hats) much later.

The workaday work of Logic, as coming together under Boole, Ada and others, was to be in connection with delicate circuits, awesomely small. No man or woman in their right mind could have predicted the effects of Moore's Law. Those who really know about logic went on to pioneer computer science and include people like Stallman and Guido, the later being our dictator for life in Pythonia, a virtual nation with branches in the UK for sure (heard of Django? [0]). I've got my Ministry of Education.

2012 really is every bit as "science fiction" as 1800s writers hoped it would be, and not because we're immortals or because Jesus came back (in most narratives -- he's been back as God-in-other-people more than once, in other tellings, including as Father Divine and Rev. Moon (not the same people at all, Allah is great)).

Sorry about the Cornish stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say in response to your sense Wittgenstein would never betray his dear English friends (and I agree, he wouldn't -- strong sense of duty and fairness), is something on the order of "aw c'mon guy, we Russians ain't so bad" and then I throw down my business card (lots of Russians in Oregon and I'm actually more Swedish-Irish if we trace the family, though the name is Swiss):

http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2011/08/business-cards.html (business cards)

> Certainly he's challenged the fatuous language of "intellectual > property" that has infiltrated our culture, language which blurs issues > of copyright, patent, and trademark (encouraging such inanity as > "software patents", which the Europeans rightly continue to reject) but, > more insidiously, links these government granted temporary monopolies to > the language of fundamental rights.  Even though such promoters of the > right to property as Jefferson nevertheless took, e.g. copyright, as > being justified only to the extent that the public at large benefited > from such laws more than they were inconvenienced by them.  And > Jefferson believed that calculus could change, as I would say it has > given current technology, though instead copyright continues to be > expanded and extended, benefiting corporations (a connection) more than > creators.
>

Yeah, I think the Anglophones are strutting around assuming other peoples will wanna think like this and if they don't, well, "we have our weapons". But who is this "we" I wonder? I've mastered English pretty well, and yet I'm quite happy to leave those property law thugs to their dooms. I watch their ship going down without much of a twinge.

I don't feel like I'm betraying our country or anything, as I watch LAWCAP crumble, which country E.J. Applewhite said he loved and I always believed him and respected him (another philosopher, still obscure, not often cited, who wrote on the "what is life?" theme, co-wrote with RBF, a greater philosopher than Kant certainly, but maybe not Wittgenstein (must we always rank?)). We were good buddies, EJA and I, sparred quite a bit. He said I was good at "techno-invective" (a word he made up, just for my brand of philo -- one of 'em). He and June came to visit us in Portland, an honor. Mostly our meetups were in and around WDC, which he knew well ('Washington Itself' was another of his books).

Like Ed (Edgar), I pay close attention to pronouns, to "we" especially. A lot of my spin is a variation on "what 'we' white man?". I'm more the native chief, or (as I've described myself) "an Asian in a gringo suit".

Fact: 'Grunch of Giants' by RBF is one of the first books in the English language to call into question the doctrine of "corporate personhood".

Fact: RBF received the Medal of Freedom from president Ronald Reagan

Fact: RBF declared "the USA we have known" to be "bankrupt and extinct" (and that was over 30 year ago)

Fact: If your history books aren't telling you anything about these facts, then you're really pretty clueless about recent US history -- "I bet the Russians know it better than you do, Harvard man" (sneering voice).

They can't make "RBF" a philosopher (though I finally persuaded Dr. Suber of Earlham College that he was one) because that brings too much engineering and architecture into the mix, too many alien memes.

In this age of hyperspecialization (a leading cause of death) we're all so tenderly allergic to and xenophobic towards what's "not invented here" -- and that kind of programming / pampering (I'd say squandering of human potential) has been encouraged. That's how they breed Eloi (H.G. Wells). Most philosophers are Eloi.

> Discussions of corporate personhood are few and far between in analytic > philosophy and the chances are good that any discussion you're likely to > find will relate to Hegel's social and political philosophy.  More > tangential would be discussions in analytic philosophy of the philosophy > of the social sciences and issues of methodological individualism and > holism, analyses of social wholes are units of explanation in theories > of the social sciences.  Popper, not coincidentally a fierce critic of > Hegel, is a common starting point here.
>

Where there's Popper there's a fire poker nearby and room to get a word in edge-wise maybe. We shall see.

> A few more remarks...
>

<< ... >>

>
> Pepsi's cloyingly sweet and I suspect that the only reason for the > "Pepsi challenge" phenomenon - where people who are loyal Coca-Cola > drinkers choose Pepsi in blind taste tests - is that they are comparing > sips, where the excessive sweetness isn't as annoying, rather than a > whole can.  The only cola I drink is Coca-Cola bottled in Mexico and > available at bodegas (or, when in Europe, the Coke bottled in the Middle > East and available at falafel stands) which, like the Coke only bottled > in the US during Passover (when Ashkenazi Jews cannot consume corn > products), is made with real sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. > It has more of a "burn" and a cleaner mouth feel.  It doesn't coat the > mouth the way the regular Coke does.  When they brought back the > "original" formula after the "New Coke" fiasco, they'd replaced sugar > with the corn syrup.  (Cheap because of corn subsidies.) >

I really appreciated your riff and Coke vs. Pepsi here << silent applause >>.

For my part, as a Portland liberal (in the Vienna or Amsterdam sense), I'm for putting the coke back in coke, i.e. trace amounts of cocaine, not really enough to do much (except there'd be neo-classical brands behind the counter at your local controlled substance bar, watering hole for lawyers in love and on the go go go).

The Pope used to drink wine spiked with cocaine. I have that ad in my blog, culled from somewhere.[1]

> No doubt image and advertising should not be underestimated.  But > whatever my political sympathies, my personal style, and so forth, > "Pepsi" remains the name of a beverage I dislike. >
> I think we need to distinguish the meaning of the word from the > associations the word and its referent may have.  (Frege, noted for his > distinction between sense and reference, also distinguished between both > of these and the various idiosyncratic images and associations connected > with a word.)
>

Ah, "the referent". Describing the arc from Frege to Wittgenstein, in terms the layman could understand (Applewhite had business cards printed up with "Layman" his title -- clever I thought), I might say something like: Frege got us distilling down to the essential denotations of words so that we could more clearly picture that world in Logic -- and Wittgenstein fell for it at first (was duped) but ended up realizing in the end that, in a certain sense, belief in the denotations of *any* word, in terms of "referents" is where our chief superstitions have succeeded most in ensnaring us.

How does Nixon mean Nixon? Does it? Does one say there's "something there" that's without spin (a definitive denotation)? Not sure if I'm asking Kripke as I'm not sure he'd understand the question.

The knee-jerk reflex, i.e. if you're a dunder-head (vis-a-vis the later Wittgenstein's spin) is, when you hear the word "thought", you briefly glance at your "thought process" and assure yourself that at least you know what "to think" means ("I'm doing it right now, here let me close my eyes and watch..."). What a dork! Hasn't read any Wittgenstein at all apparently. (I saw a few lights go on in the laymen out there -- when I said "dork" especially).

The opening passage from St. Augustine is the target to be hit, over and over, when it comes to taking out "denotation" at the county fair (imagining a booth, where WIttgenstein takes aim with his pellet gun). "Words do not point" might be the greatest dharma of this great sharp shooter, in the eyes of those who appreciate his teachings most (in Nepal perhaps? -- certainly not in England (chiding, poking, taunting, more irritating remarks [2])).

>
>
>> But lets link to Occupy for a moment:
>>
>> http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope
>>
>> A preoccupation with art / propaganda leads me to ethnography and to >> Wittgenstein's griping about British ethnocentrism ala Frazer etc. >>
>
> Be careful with expressions like "British ethnocentrism".  If it means > "ethnocentrism such as displayed by some British as well as others," > that's quite harmless.  But the issues with which you've connected it

"Harmless" in terms of my meaning, yes.

Not "harmless" in the sense that those most infected by the "manifest destiny" meme, such as here in North America, have done untold damage to Planet Earth.

I would put Hitler's national socialists in the same box as the American neocons (outta Chicago) in that particular sense (not in other senses): a sense of entitlement to some empire (but than that's the UK influence for ya, i.e. when Musso armed the Ethiopian region's power-outs to hit back at the Abyssinians, typical "divide and conquer" techniques, the UK 1% said "welcome to the 1%" (translating to Occupy for a moment -- another post-English).

Here's a Youtube I like spoofing the USAer psyche's unconscious obeisance to UKer styles of thought, and the sorrows of empire this begets em:

http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2007/09/lampoon-harpoon.html (there's an implication the brainwashing is especially severe among Masons)

> suggest you don't simply mean that.  You should recall Wittgenstein's > irritation with Malcolm's remarks about "national character" (and again, > this connects with corporate personhood via the issue of ascribing > personality traits to groups).  I doubt Wittgenstein's point was only > that Malcom shouldn't ascribe virtues to nations as a whole.  Ascribing > vices to them is equally problematic.
>
>> Why is what "they" believe considered "superstitious" next to what >> "we" believe? Wittgenstein uses that for some fondly cherished >> "philosophical" notions. And how is the play of brands and the >> "corporate persons" for which they stand not a form of spell-binding, >> bewitchment or magic?
>>

"They" believe in "thought processes", hah hah, what goofballs.

So backward, those people.

>
> I'm getting all the connections you're making here except the link to > corporate persons.  It seems to me that the fetishism (in the

Hah hah, they believe in "corporate persons" what superstitious a-holes and how arrogant to think these ideas will have a long half-life (they're more than half dead already -- effing voodoo economics (half zombie, sleepwalky crap, could get us all killed those bozos)).

As a cultural backdrop, you should sketch in the idea of a geek, open source, public minded, likes Stallman, appreciates Guido, i.e. me but not just me. An invisible army.

People like me write code, we write rules for machines to follow, and on top of those machines are real people, trying to switch stuff around, get work done. Bureaucracies. Executive branch stuff (has to be fast in this fast-moving age).

Lawyers code stuff too, but their stuff, like the analytic philosophy stuff, does not run on computers and is too slow to keep up.

Maybe if we spike their Coke they'll grow a brain, but in the meantime....

The Supreme Court is suppose to have a judge specializing in "outside our jurisdiction law" but he quit, right? Shows ya what I know.

I'm glad Obama gets out of DC a lot, I always encourage that in a president. There's maybe hope for him yet.

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope

> anthropological sense) surrounding brands aims to distance consumers > from awareness of the corporate entity.  While the traditional idea of > "brand loyalty" encouraged seeing the corporation as a person - one with > whom the consumer had a relationship, felt a sense of trust, and so > forth - the marketing of brand image seems to me actually to subvert > that.  The product is a vehicle for the consumer's image and aspirations > and peer group identification, a means of "self-expression", rather than > expressing a relationship with the manufacturers.  Or so it seems to me > at any rate.  It's interesting to note how different products are > marketed.  Insurance companies, who seem to be doing some of the most > creative advertising recently, are emphasizing personal relationships, > with memorable spokespeople (or animals or cartoons).  Some beer is > marketed by appealing to image and "lifestyle" but others focus on the > people making the beer, the craft, the tradition.  Of course, being > someone who is a "discerning" beer drinker is also a vehicle for > "self-expression", but the relationship with the brewer is emphasized. > The major soft drink makers aren't doing that.
>

Interesting analysis. There's certainly the idea of the distant parent company on high, the behind-the-scenes giant, and then your more homey brands, such as Lipton and Ben and Jerry's (both inheriting from the same superclass object: Unilever, with a presence in Cuba (where Alex's dad was born)).

>> Aspect-blindness, not seeing one's own conditioning for what it is; >
> Are you equating these two things?  That strikes me as mistaken, though > perhaps you could elaborate.
>

I'm somewhat frustrated how the slicers and dicers who've waded into PI Part 2 and turned the delicate filigree of thoughts, his web site, into a basis for new nomenclature. That's fun to do, but makes it harder for laymen to follow, as they may read the original (or a translation) and not come up with the same taxonomy that has since solidified in the secondary literature.

> Seeing only one aspect - being able to see an image in only one way - > might be connected with an inability to recognize one's conditioning.

Like thinking one just has to glance at a ghostly "thought process" to know that it's there -- and yet "ghosts" are for superstitious people to imagine (believe in).

> But that's quite different from aspect blindness.  And conditioning

E.g. seeing oneself as a superstitious person, might as well imagine a bone through your nose, if you're a typical knee-jerk believer in "thought processes".

One might be "aspect blind" to one's ethnicity (form of life) in that sense.

> doesn't seem to play a significant role in the paradigmatic examples of > seeing an aspect, though one might be conditioned to always use a > picture in a particular way and thus to be "blind" (though this is not > what Wittgenstein meant with his discussion of "aspect blindness", a > hypothetical phenomenon rather than something he took to be pervasive) > to other ways of seeing.
>

"Seeing in new ways" as well as "hearing in new ways" is what I take to be an over-arching goal in Wittgenstein's conception of philosophy. As an ethical undertaking, it's a kind of deprogramming. And it's the hardest kind of deprogramming of all, designed to give one an alien perspective on one's own culture and time-space situation on Planet Earth. He gives us the tools to create distance where many hadn't realized a "distance" could be created. New forms of objectivity (sounds bolder than "subjectivity" -- there's that marketing sense again). In passing through these doors of perception, it's possible to look back and say "gee, I was somewhat blind before" but then we can't see all ways at once. It's a duck, then a rabbit, only fleetingly a duckrabbit, if at all.

http://www.facebook.com/PhiloBiz

>> philosophy helps develop our self-awareness, which is world-awareness. >>
>> What would it mean if have the moon, in its darkest phase (no sunlight >> reflected) were suddenly illuminated for 30 seconds by a high powered >> color laser doing a raster-like trace, showing the Pepsi logo brightly >> reflecting across its entire face?
>>
>
> I don't understand the question.

Oh, more must haunted by a kind of nightmare, based on recent conversations with a neighborhood psychometrician (a Dr. of Philo, so a philosopher, if English is consistent (chuckle)), who talked about shining lasers on the moon, turning it into a billboard. You look up, at night, at there's a giant Pepsi logo where the moon should be. He's by no means the first to think of that.

He was mainly thinking of ways to do something fun with excess power, as Bonneville (BPA -- local power administration) sometimes has a problem of way too much juice and needs to just send some gigawatts into the ground. Even California can't take it all (but how about shunting it to Japan? -- R&D is underway on these new long lines, more superconductive than usual ( GENI.org )).

It's a complicated equation (about the dams), but basically the regional wind farms (lots of blades) don't want to shut down when there's good wind, as that's money for them, but spilling over the dams nitrogenates the water and kills the salmon, and that's money too (everything is money I guess, including the solar fusion plant that underwrites the whole show -- a premise of GST one might say, is "money from heaven" (GST competes with Econ as a discipline)).

>
>> So many would be horrified by such a stunt. I'm not encouraging it. >> I'm just saying, by such memories in time are meanings molded. >>
>
> Again, I point to the Fergean distinction I mentioned earlier. >

What does "the moon" mean? A finger points to the moon.

I'd like to say experience is innocent of language in that it has never been touched by it (the uncarved block).

Our names do not stick, ultimately. Why should they? They're tools, not post-its.

The desert winds of language. Ozymandius was here.

>
> There is your fellow Rorty student, Cornell West.  And Chomsky, of > course.  But the participation of philosophers in civic life is > relatively rare here, in contrast with the situation in France.  Or even > the UK.
>

Chomsky makes an appearance at the end of this Youtube, which does a decent job of painting some stuff in the collective psyche:

http://youtu.be/j-rxe9Ayb8c ( RAP NEWS X - #Occupy2012 (feat. Noam Chomsky & Anonymous)

Chomsky was somewhat upstaged by Sasha Cohen ala Ali G that time, as was Ron Paul.

Remembering comedy. People enjoy "British humor" (I hear that a lot). Peter Sellers.[3]

<< ... >>

Kirby


END NOTES

[0] http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-character.html (head of Django?)

[1] http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2009/08/before-prohibition.html (put the coke back in coke)

[2] seriously though, Pauling House shares the block with a Newari Temple, and that's Alex's community a lot, per Burma Night etc., and his appreciation for Wittgenstein is rarely matched in anyone. He's not a UKer anymore though (Dr. Aris was his dad, professor of Himalayan studies -- both our families worked in Bhutan, but at different times).

[3]

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7032 is a reply to message #7031] Tue, 10 January 2012 16:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
<< ... >>

http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/makeover1.html (from the ruins -- old web page of mine re Chomsky some)

> Chomsky makes an appearance at the end of this Youtube, which does a > decent job of painting some stuff in the collective psyche: >
> http://youtu.be/j-rxe9Ayb8c  ( RAP NEWS X - #Occupy2012 (feat. Noam > Chomsky & Anonymous)
>
> Chomsky was somewhat upstaged by Sasha Cohen ala Ali G that time, as > was Ron Paul.
>
> Remembering comedy.  People enjoy "British humor" (I hear that a lot). >  Peter Sellers.[3]
>
> << ... >>

>
> [3]

[3] http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-ethnography.html (links to Wittgenstein and Weinenger)

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein and the 99 percent [message #7033 is a reply to message #7031] Tue, 10 January 2012 17:34 Go to previous message
kirby urner is currently offline  kirby urner
Messages: 349
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
Clarifying:

> I don't feel like I'm betraying our country or anything, as I watch > LAWCAP crumble, which country E.J. Applewhite said he loved and I > always believed him and respected him (another philosopher, still > obscure, not often cited, who wrote on the "what is life?" theme, > co-wrote with RBF, a greater philosopher than Kant certainly, but > maybe not Wittgenstein (must we always rank?)).

"with RBF, a greater philosopher than Kant certainly" -- the valance there was with RBF, not trying to harness / saddle EJA with those onerous chops / chores.

And it's because of a kind of engineering brilliance and therefore having ways to follow a moral imperative that take him more deeply into geometry than Kant wanted to go (but not Wittgenstein?), and thereby a kind of "visual logic" that makes its own kind of sense, a sense that has been important in philosophy, in Platonism especially, from the beginning.

I'm talking about polyhedrons, yes.

Where are the polyhedrons today? Or "polyhedra" if you prefer.

Because that's where you should dig if you want to find real philosophies, the ones that are golden (or provide happiness, like a warm puppy). What's philosophy without polyhedra? You may think I jest, but I jest in earnest.

We ("we") stopped insisting on fluency in Latin and Greek, when we dropped the Classical model of education (more philologically sophisticated).

I'm not saying proficiency in Python or C++ makes up for this loss, but if you're doing polyhedra in one of those, well maybe... Just don't stray too far from the fold, philosophers, if you want to inherit your brand's luster. Remember to wear your bling with pride, when called upon, or when facing down those idiot tyrants and pretenders to the throne.

Kirby

_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@undergroundwiki.org
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Previous Topic: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein on England
Next Topic: [Wittrs] A Wittgenstein Primer
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jul 25 20:40:40 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11467 seconds