To begin with Michael's ending because I fear it explains a lot: Michael writes (the first line a quote from me):
"> From all of which, and more, I infer Imago doesn't follow Wittgenstein any more than he follows me or Augustine. You switch between "you" and "Imago": Are you addressing Imago or merely brushing him off in the third person?" In large part that's me being my usual too-hasty, too-impatient, too-sloppy, too-distracted forum-self. At one point I fleetingly acknowledged to myself I was switching from first person to third -- and back to first at the end, but I pondered my unending to-do list, and I said, "The hell with it, I gotta get this thing out." I wasn't switching the person to brush Virago off. But I admit I'm torn between admiration for his pertinacity, and exasperation at the way he uses a name-dropping cloak to drape himself in ostensible sophistication but seems to understand very little of what he's apparently read. I'd much rather have pertinacity from someone equipped for the job. After posting a somewhat detailed and restrained description of some thoughts, I asked a question that you as an artist may recognize: "Do you find nothing at all about it that's acceptable?" That is, of course, a test question. If you put on a big show at a gallery, and someone says to you, "There's not a damn thing, not one inch, in any of these paintings that's worth anything at all," you know what to think of his comments. Imago's answer was: "No I do not." He and I had a clash on the forum two or three years ago, and his bruised reaction then was such that it told me this person would be unrelentingly adversarial toward me forever. In the end I allowed my exasperation to make me more uncivil than I should be. You ask: " By the way, you take Wittgenstein to task for writing, "But what does this mean?"--in particular, his use of "mean." But that's the English translation. What does it say in the original German?" It says, "Aber was heisst das?" My copy of PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS is the second edition, with oodles of "changes" in the English text no doubt prompted by an incoming stream of gripes about the first edition's translation. Given that my German is all but non-existent (though I think I can grope my through "Aber was heisst das?") I'm eager to trust the second edition translation. You say: "I don't think you've ever addressed this. You have only offered us your son's horsey, the Andean sheepherd's incomprehension of English, and foopgoom." Aw, shoot, now, you know you can't mean that. Oh, I get it: You just want me to hunt down my IIMT theory and post it again, and my description of a dictionary definitions, and my speech about how "to have" is a chimerical action, and my raves about the reifying impact of 'is', and my description of the four stages in an "act of art", and my. . . Having addressed the easy parts of your posting, I need a nap before tackling the first chunk of your posting. Here's your entire posting again: In a message dated 7/31/10 4:17:56 PM, [email protected] writes: > Cheerskep > > In all these years of discussing thing with you (sequentially sending > electronic messages to each other's attention), I now realize that I don't > have a very clear notion of what concept you entertain when you write > > notion > meaning > name > > What is a notion composed of? How does anyone (or you particularly) > construct > or form a notion? How do representations of external objects (a horsey, > say, > or any other perceptible thing) stimulate a notion, and how does your > thinking > or cognitive faculty establish a relationship between discrete stimulated > notions of a horsey and a foopgoom. In other words, how do you (or anyone) > establish the notions of relationships, such as causation, or modals such > as > possibility, or the subjunctive, a probationary contradiction? > > I don't think you've ever addressed this. You have only offered us your > son's > horsey, the Andean sheepherd's incomprehension of English, and foopgoom. > > Unless I have misunderstood what you meant previously. <g> > > By the way, you take Wittgenstein to task for writing, "But what does this > mean?"--in particular, his use of "mean." But that's the English > translation. > What does it say in the original German? > > > > From all of which, and more, I infer Imago doesn't follow Wittgenstein > any > > more than he follows me or Augustine. > > You switch between "you" and "Imago": Are you addressing Imago or merely > brushing him off in the third person? > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
