Are you having fun, Daniel? I'm inclined to Robin's "bemused horror": I
can't work out what you're talking about, largely, I suspect, because you
don't really know. You are not, er, very logical: especially in ignoring
that when "we ask what a word is", we are using language to ask what it
is.
I don't know how you can distinguish between "logical Grammar" and
"language" on the one hand and language as it is actually used; your
statement that there is no articulation except linguistic articulation is
outrageous, ask any animal, painter or baby. Have a look at a few Rodin
sculptures. Are you attempting to talk about the neurological structures
of the brain and how they affect language?? - such structures are hardly
immutable, as Darwin pointed out, though very interesting - at another
point you seem to be saying that the temporal nature of our existence,
that we do things one thing after another, is "logical grammar": but
really, you seem to be talking about articles of faith rather than
arguments.
The main point of value of Wittgenstein for me (and I do indeed find him
very interesting) is that he points out with acid clarity the _limits_ of
language and logic, which as he says in Tractatus, cover a very small
problem of existence. "The rest," he said famously, "must be passed over
in silence". Poetic disobedience for me lies in prodding that silence.
> We endow words with meaning when we read them, not the other way
>around.
Well, that was what I was saying.
Best
Alison
|