Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I Get W's Intent, Zwolf

This may turn out to be the best of my Wittgenstein anagrams.  It makes sense, and it also is self-referential the way the names that programmers make sometimes are, like: ZWEI = zwei was "eine" initially.

It it true I get it?  Well, maybe, but I have been on a long digression through Kant, Bergson, and Bencivenga before I get back to finishing W.

Bencivenga makes an interesting counterpoint to W.  His last proposition is:

8.  Only what we cannot speak about must we not pass over in silence.  (take that, W!)

In Bencivenga's world language exists to avoid violations of anticipated patterns that may result from the  emergence of new conspicuous events. Conspicuous events dominate in a kind of "survival of the fittest" and are more likely to repeat.  However, even to accept a Darwinian model is to collapse into a static historical view that falls short of the actual process-- the arrival of competing events, patterns-- which is not the same as "evolution."  It is more than that.  It is the totality of the emerging manifold. Calling it an evolution triggers the collapse of the "un-sayable reality" into a Darwinian instance of reality, an artificial subset of it. 

Thus B like W describes the process of making metaphysics with a view to the limits of language, but B brings a different "a priori" set of values to the investigation.  W. is one instance of metaphysics described.  B. is another instance, but B makes the point that it is not the philosopher's values that are applied to the metaphysics, but the values of the public consuming the metaphysics that allows either W or B to be dominant-- to be perceived as true.   B says perception is reality, and truth is, by default, the dominant pattern. Thus history, truth, meaning, become a sort of stock exchange in a very erratic market.

What I am getting from these investigations is that the exploration of  the limits of the knowable may be a valuable pursuit.  By attempting to approach the unknown from as many different ways as possible, the limits where the knowable and unknowable meet may give birth to an island-like entity,  a land that, while not seen, may have its contours explored and mapped.  And I think,  likening this to an exploration of the Mandelbrot set, there may be many breathtaking vistas along the edges.

Short model:   a novel is an artificially constructed pattern that attempts to dominate over other emergent patterns long enough to get read.


Mar. 24th, 2009 04:15 pm (UTC)
Re: theories of the novel (as in novelty)
Perhaps readers who depend on their non-fiction reading for livelihood may eventually find fiction, by habit, more difficult to get through?

Fiction must be written well enough to make the reader's arguments point to life and not the words themselves.

Or, as Buckaroo Bonzai might say: If you can't finish a work of fiction-- well, there you are...

Maybe the writer failed?
Cydonia photo: ESA

This is the journal of David Ross
Your thoughts are welcome here

Latest Month

September 2018
Powered by LiveJournal.com