Michael’s Comments (group member since Mar 07, 2009)

Michael’s comments from the fiction files redux group.

Dan wrote: "Also, the book is a fast read if you absolutely hate it, though I am sure you will miss many of the philosophic underpinnings (if there are any)...."

Dan – I am searching for connections to Wittgenstein even before attempting our text, and I might be way off base. Time will tell. And I must say you folks have me worried that this upcoming read is going to be quite the chore.

I was serious bout grounding my reading in Witt’s concept of Private Language, but joking about Witt’s propensity (particularly in PI) to propose and then discard ideas willy-nilly; reminds me of Plato in that, putting forth a thesis just to have the characters in his dialogues tear said thesis to shreds.

I suspect in both cases the original thesis played well in the author’s mind.

The Stanford Encyclopedia website is a good place to find quick overviews of philosophical topics, and I would recommend this write-up of Wittgenstein for those who are interested. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wit... I’d point you to the following paragraph:

Three celebrated notions, which are closely related, ensue in the Wittgensteinian conversation: private language, form of life, and the notion of grammar. Directly following the rule-following sections in PI, and therefore easily thought to be the upshot of the discussion, are those sections called by interpreters "the private-language argument". Whether it be a veritable argument or not (and Wittgenstein never labeled it as such), these sections point out that for an utterance to be meaningful it must be possible in principle to subject it to public standards and criteria of correctness. For this reason, a private- language, in which "individual words … are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations … " (PI 243), is not a genuine, meaningful, rule-governed language. The signs in language can only function when there is a possibility of judging the correctness of their use, "so the use of word stands in need of a justification which everybody understands" (PI 261).

Pretty dry stuff compared to our inimitable Ludwig W.

I have quoted earlier some sections of Philosophical Investigations on language as a reflection (a “showing”) of form, which I’d like to repeat here:

“PI #200 It is, of course, imaginable that two people belong to a tribe unacquainted with games should sit at a chess-board and go through the moves of a game of chess; and even with all the appropriate mental accompaniments. And if we were to see it we should say they were playing chess. But now imagine a game of chess translated according to certain rules into a series of actions which we do not ordinarily associate with a game – say into yells and stamping of feet. And now suppose those two people to yell and stamp instead of playing the form of chess that we are used to; and this in such a way that their procedure is translatable by suitable rules into a game of chess. Should we still be inclined to say they were playing a game? What right would one have to say so?”

Notice how the shallow imitation of a chess game in the first case (including “all the appropriate mental accompaniments”) might look and act like a real language-game to an observer, but in fact is not. This would correspond to an argument against a private language. The second case, though, which might look to a casual observer as random yelling and stomping, does indeed represent a meaningful language-game. Is this not an argument for Private Language?

Here is another section from Philosophical Investigations on what “rules” are shown by language:

“PI #83 Doesn’t the analogy between language and games throw light here? We can easily imagine people amusing themselves in a field by playing with a ball so as to start various existing games, but playing many without finish them and in between throwing the ball aimlessly into the air, chasing one another with the ball and bombarding one another for a joke and so on. And now someone says: The whole time they are playing a ball-game and following definite rules at every throw.
And is there not also the case where we play and – make up the rules as we go along? And there is even one where we alter them – as we go along.”

In a worldview where thought-word-reality coalesces, it is appropriate to walk away from Philosophical Investigations with more questions than answers. That is clearly the intent of the book.

There is a sense, though, that Philosophical Investigations is a cynical work, destructive of much of the philosophical discussion which precedes it. I had written before that in his earlier TLP, Witt severely limits the scope of what could be shown by language; and PI goes even further – hence the reaching for allegories and metaphors in many of the “language-games”.

But I think you would be missing the core of what Witt is saying if you miss his playfulness and humor and, what seems to be a common trait of much 20th century philosophy, what he sees as the therapeutic nature of philosophical discourse.

So I ask, in what sense is the text of Wittgenstein’s Mistress a playful, therapeutic, personal language?

mm

Margaret wrote:
Ben wrote:
i've got three copies i'm willing to sell to the highest bidder(s).

bidding starts at $100 per.

$200 nets you an autographed copy. autographed by my neighbor. he's kind of a dick, but he has nice handwriting.

So much for "uneasy in a position of power".


Lolol

Margaret wrote: "My new reading goal is to not read anything unless it is written by an imaginary friend or an imaginary friend of an imaginary friend. So let's go guys, quit reading and start writing."

"In the beginning, sometimes I left imaginary manuscripts for my friends."

Patrick wrote: "Dan wrote: "So there is this Goodreads group called "Hard Core Chicks"

http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1...

I was surprised to find something entirely different when co..."

This kidlink group also has a great thread on "how tall are you?" We should do that. I am like 6'2", and pretty much taller than all the other kids in my class. I am embarrassed and ashamed of my body type.

They also discuss _Wittgenstein's Mistress_ and agree that it (and I quote) sucks majorly. I am going to start using that phrase. Just saying.
mm

Shel wrote: "Help me out here, you more theologically experienced people..."

The Latin can hurt the brain to decipher, so here be a quick reference to vaginal symbolism built into the stone and glass of Chartres Cathedral, “Mary’s Seat on Earth”, which I think much easier on the eyes than those toothy pictures we braved earlier.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/fr...


Hugh wrote: "Lovecraft definitely came to mind in this story with the language cranked up nearly to Transcendental -- the Latin allusions and books brimming with secrets.”

So true! Is it possible to crank language up any further? Poe is definitely cranked to 11.

“In the one instance, the dreamer, or enthusiast, being interested by an object usually not frivolous, imperceptibly loses sight of this object in a wilderness of deductions and suggestions issuing therefrom, until, at the conclusion of a day dream often replete with luxury, he finds the incitamentum, or first cause of his musings, entirely vanished and forgotten. [Italic are Poe’s:]

Don’t you wish you could use the phrase “often replete with luxury”, or the word “incitamentum”, in your everyday conversation? In italics!?

Hugh wrote: "I also agree with Michael on the whole buried alive thing.... I'm not sure how often that happened but that fear seemed almost monomania for Poe... one of my favorites is in the Cask of Amontillado as the character is being sealed in, brick by brick: "Fortunato!"

Of course there is his The Premature Burial, an essay by Poe on the subject with historical examples, Madeline Usher's similar fate, etc. etc. In The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket the stow-away is trapped for months in a crawlspace below decks and our author simply luxuriates in describing the claustrophobic conditions. There must be other examples.

Jcamilo wrote: “Poe also liked to build up his imagenery with contrasts…”

Yes! Are you a teacher or what!? How else but describe the supreme analytical skills of C. Auguste Dupin, and his nemesis…an orangutan!

How else but to describe the concept of hiding something in the open?!

Excuse me, I am yelling again.

Jcamilo wrote: “this guy prose is flawless, he repeats the themes, the stories and we are always drugged by his opium.”

Yes, as close to flawless as we know. And yes, the whole public persona about being a druggie. Don’t know if I believe it.

mm

My. Given the level of animadversion both Dan and Margaret evidence, I don't know if I even want to open this book!

Maybe the title is the best part! We'll see.


In any case, it got me to reread Wittgenstein, and I'll count that as a plus.

Dan: from what you suffered reading this, does the story (which starts "In the beginning. sometimes I left messages in the street" ) have any thing to do with Wittgenstein's concept of a Private Language? A concept which, like Menard's "...technical article on the possibility of enriching the game of chess by means of eliminating one of the rooks' pawns..." Wittgenstein proposes, recommends, disputes, and ends by rejecting. ;)

mm

Shel wrote: "If we look at them all together and what Poe might be trying to... express through them/use them for...

The first one is about election, or the people chosen to be part of God's kingdom. The man w..."

Good Morning Shel - glad you are enjoying Poe's story. My sense is that the common thread to the medieval citations is a notion of the "damned" – a tribe Poe tends to associate himself with! - those not elected for heaven, outside the citadel, the corrupt and decaying, etc. The purpose for referencing these works (not so obscure, to a 19th century classicist) to show the level of introversion and monastic scholarship of the narrator.

Hugh hints at it in his post, but the main thing for me with Poe is the frigging writing. The story line is great, but how many writers could have pulled off the scene with the teeth? How may writers could have taken us into the dislocations in time our narrator experiences?

I personally think that “monomania” the main theme of the story and, as Patrick points out, this would be different than a more diffused compulsion. We often find a feminine principal to monadologies, either the vagina dentate or the unfolding petals of the rosa mysterium; Poe inevitably strangling, or burying alive, or making some suicide pack with his love interest. I would love to hear what Jung would say about this. But, Oro is probably right to warn against bringing the 20th century too far into Poe’s writing.

I’d like somebody to tell me how many stories by Poe concern being buried alive. It must be at least a dozen.

Merci Baudelaire,
mm

Bonita wrote: "Dayyyaaaam! Brian, tell your little girl she's already building a fan base right here! "

I'm with you on this Mama Bonita. And Brian, you do the proud Dad thing pretty good.

Michael wrote: "Jcamilo wrote: "Show, not tell, it is Wittgenstein and Borges..."

Yes. This is one of the few consistencies between early and late Wittgenstein; it is language in USE where meaning lies; it sho..."

The early Witt (Tractatus) severely limits what makes linguistic sense; ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, the foundations of mathematics, etc. are all out of bounds, literally “non-sense”. And (TLP 7.0) “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Language, however, “shows” such formal patterns, much as the Tractatus’ form is very evident. Philosophy is not “propositions”, but an “activity”.

The later Witt, the disjointed scatterer of aphorisms, is even more brutal, eschewing even natural language as nonsense. What makes sense in language is temporal, evolutionary, contextual. It is only in the “activity” of language-games in which meaning is evidenced, not in what they reference or in their grammar. Language “reflects” meaning, and more Idealistic even than his early thought, what is reflected is more than a non-descript form it is a non-descript process. Very Hericlitean thinker (we like them) as in PI, Part2 (the unnumbered section):

“I can know what someone else is thinking, not what I am thinking. It is correct to say ‘I know what you are thinking’, and wrong to say ‘I know what I am thinking.’ (A whole cloud of philosophy condensed into a drop of grammar.)”

Here, BTW, is a famous list (in PI #23) of language-games, showing the contextual off-beat nature of meaning. Witt’s humor here reminds me very much of Borges’ more fanciful catalogs:

Giving orders, and obeying them…
Describing the appearance of an object…
Or giving its measurements…
Constructing an object from a description (a drawing)…
Reporting an event…
Speculating about an event…
Forming and testing a hypothesis…
Making up a story; and reading it…
Play-acting…
Singing catches…
Guessing riddles…
Making a joke; telling it…
Solving a problem in practical arithmetic…
Translating from one language to another…
Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying…


mm

Jcamilo wrote: "Show, not tell, it is Wittgenstein and Borges..."

Yes. This is one of the few consistencies between early and late Wittgenstein; it is language in USE where meaning lies; it shows not tells.

(PI # 203) "Language is a labyrith. You approach from one side and you know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and no longer know your way about."

I’ve been reading a lot of Wittgenstein these past weeks, and I’ve been struck over and again with the similarities between W’s language-game (more often in the plural, “language-games”) and the much admired fictional library (libraries?) of Senor Borges.

The short, numbered, paragraphs that Witt. presents to us are, like Borges’ stories, miniatures. These aphorisms, particularly in the scatterbrained Philosophical Investigations, are independent pieces in their own right; standing on their own as worlds, or hypothetical “games”.

In his decidedly more formal Tractatus Herr W. interests me in sets of language/rules which are provably isomorphic projections of a same language. This by way of definition, a rule of language which provides one-to-one mappings between elements in sets, being akin to projective geometry (the common axiomatic base for all geometries BTW): picture that which is common between, say, the shadow of a triangle cast by a campfire on to the man holding it, and the partial shadow projected of it on a distant tree, and the further distorted shadow cast against a cliff face towards the horizon.

In the decidedly less formal Philosophical Investigations, a humorous text in many ways (if one’s sense of humor tends in that direction!), our dear Herr W’s permutations of like language-games passes the Borgesean border, it would seem to this reader, well into the wild. He asks if a phrase, e.g. “the white whale”, and all translations of that phrase, e.g. the “la baleine blanche”, are isomorphic, is it not also the case that there is a possible language where “the white whale” actually means “la baleine blanche” to one’s mind, or possibly “la baleine noir”, sans translation ; and would it not also be the case that there is a possible language-game where the phrase “the white whale” actually means “Ulysses” or “Gatsby”, or simply gibberish (to one, and not to another). I sense Borges smiling at this.

[Ben; does you head hurt yet? Read on.:]

Like Borges, also, Witt. experiments with cryptographic language-games where all words are mapped to their English definitions, save one, or where each letter is mapped to another so that in one context a certain text is gibberish, and in another context the text is in fact Moby Dick; or further:

“#163 But suppose that when he did this he always wrote b for A, c for B, d for C, and so on, and a for Z? – Surely we should call this too a derivation by means of the table…It would still be a perfectly good case of derivation according to the table, even if it were represented by a schema of arrows without any simple regularity.

Suppose, however, that he does not stick to a single method of transcribing, but alters his method according to a simple rule; if he has once written n for A, then he writes o for the next A, p for the next, and so on. – But where is the dividing line between this procedure and a random one?”

But here is a favorite aphorism of mine, which hints at W’s humor, concerning the rules of language and the existence of private language [italics are W’s:]:

“#200 It is, of course, imaginable that two people belong to a tribe unacquainted with games should sit at a chess-board and go through the moves of a game of chess; and even with all the appropriate mental accompaniments. And if we were to see it we should say they were playing chess. But now imagine a game of chess translated according to certain rules into a series of actions which we do not ordinarily associate with a game – say into yells and stamping of feet. And now suppose those two people to yell and stamp instead of playing the form of chess that we are used to; and this in such a way that the their procedure is translatable by suitable rules into a game of chess. Should we still be inclined to say they were playing a game? What right would one have to say so?”


I am certain that if there is a Heaven, Borges and Witt. are there together somewhere, weaving stories, confounding us and broadening us, and most certainly laughing.

mm

Margaret wrote: "Lauren wrote:
I can't tell you if I act well. Ask Kerry! She's seen me at it!
"

Yeah, re-post these photos if you can. I'd love to see them!

Margaret wrote: "I'm on page 31 of Wittgenstein's Mistress. Similar to McCarthy's "The Road". Sad and lonely. Disconnected and rambling. Nothing terrifying yet. Like canniblals. That might liven it up a bit. Anyone..."


Mare: I don't plan to start reading this novel until sometime toward the beginning of June. Meanwhile, I am suckered into re-reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations in their entirety and wonder if I will ever be the same. I was just going in for a couple quotes, and before I knew it I was bewitched into playing his language games again, e.g. (from PI);

If I am inclined to suppose that a mouse has come into being by spontaneous generation out of grey rags and dust, I shall do well to examine those rags very closely to see how a mouse may have hidden in them, how it may have got there and so on. But if I am convinced that a mouse cannot come into being from these things, then this investigation will perhaps be superfluous.

But first we must learn to understand what it is that opposes such an examination of details in philosophy.

If you, or anyone else, want to get started on a discussion of Wittgenstein's Mistress right away, please don't wait for me. I can always play the caboose and try to keep the discussion on track from behind.

mm

Fer crying..."

Hugh, this is huge.

How much swag can you bring back on the plane?

mm

Hugh wrote: "God, I'm hoping this doesn't come across as pimping... but I can't figure out how to send an email to all friends from the Fiction Files... Apologies who are wondering WTF....

I've got a blog at: ..."

a) I just love plastic swag!! Can't get enough of it. Please bring tons for the Dorka.
b) Your travelogue is awesome!!! Note: "travelogue" a much cooler word than "blog". It should be at least "blogue", or at best "biologue".
c) I am telling everybody I know what a great friend of mine you are!!!
d) Lastly,!!!!

Just wow.

This needs it's own thread.

Christy wrote: "Trying to finish The Road by McCarthy. I started it awhile ago but had to put it down just about half way through. I was just to upset/depressed by it and really had to consider whether I wanted ..."

Maybe not the book for freshly minted Moms. Though if you read through to the end I think you will discover the boy was parented well. Actually a pretty upbeat ending for Master McCarthy.

Shel wrote: "Did you know that there are people who believe Roddenberry came from the future to plant the seeds of change and give us ideas for new technology? (This kind of flies in the face of the fact that h..."

This was all part of our plan to unmask the Trekkies amongst us. I am afraid we have succeeded all too well.

Carmen wrote: "Cormac McCarthy is good and i do like the border trilogy. Few western writers capture the landscape as well as he does in that series. Blood Meridian is a western but it isn't. Its in my opinion anti western. IF a western is described as a novel that is about a specific time period, place and ethos at work then I think McCarthy injects twentieth century nihilism into a time period which was every bit as brutal as he describes, but had a different value system. In a way it seems anachronistic to me. "

Interesting angle to Master McCarthy's writing.

I was struck in the Border Trilogy, maybe in an opposite sense than you mean, with the interjection of 20th century technology/products into the story. There is something about one of his characters popping down a bag of M&M's which can cause time-travel induced nose-bleed.

mm

Jonathan wrote: " . . no doubt, pops, i was almost two years in before i really felt like i had the reigns . . . readings from you and hugh and shel and marge were invaluable . . . they say hard writing makes easy..."

I'm trying to think which interview I saw of yours recently where you mentioned the collaboration between writer and reader. Probably the interview where you mention Dickens. Interesting MO; not universal by any means.
mm

We all know the real title of your sophomore effort is "The Beast: the story that nearly killed Jon to write."

To think! There was a time when this beast had YOU cornered. You were even wondering whether it wouldn't be best not to just put the whole unwieldy project on a back burner for a while.

Good times Jonathan. Good times.

mm