reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni
Sure, there is a lot of room for interpretation. I'm going to save a little bit of typing and repost some posts here that I posted on another website
relative to my take on the implications of Wittgenstein's work. It's a bit "stream of consciousness", but I think that my answer to your question
can be found in the cracks. Forgive the impreciseness and poor grammar...
There is nothing to say, says he, apart from the where and how you say it. I'm getting an impression of his view of language that is compatible with
language as a connective tissue. In my mind's eye I see cells under a microscope, membranes pushed together closely, such as the interface of our
projections onto the "world" of others and vice versa. If you zoom into each cell you find the things that have unique names cannot be variable and
cannot be subdivided, but they, rather than being the plainest thing, are utterly mysterious. The internal cell structures are the objects, facts, and
propositions made within a world for presentation to another world, eg another person. The projections are the impressions made by one cell upon
another. Where one pushes out, the other draws inward to create a space for it, and vice versa. The rules of language are also mysterious, like the
things for which names stand. The rules are like the inverse of things which have names, and all of language is a roiling soup moving in the spaces
between these mysteries.
The roiling soup has structure - it can't not have structure. We use logical scaffolding to erect complex propositions in logical space, but logical
space exists within the membrane of each world and is merely analogous to the logical space in another's world. Given that the projection says of the
propositions what the propositions cannot say of themselves, what the projection says is a function of the impact felt on another's world by way of
your projections. Not knowing the state of affairs in another's world, you cannot ultimately be certain of your impact on it. In close points of
contact, pains can be taken to instill analogous understandings, but these are reflections across a linguistic asymptote, which is the membrane
itself. How this analogous construction affects the state of affairs in another world is also dependent on the other projections being impressed upon
The study of this feature - of the interaction between worlds, must be similar to computational fluid dynamics.
this is an intellectual model of "we are all one" in that it is not possible for us to speak of language outside of language - this is an error. so
all language grows up between us and we are both constrained by its rules and deluded by the pressure exerted by the "state of affairs" which is,
itself, composed of variable objects. the pressure itself forces compensatory rearrangement of the internal "state of affairs", which projects into
the world of others, inducing more compensation, etc. this requires that we are "inside" a system whose rules are mysterious (Godel, again), just as
we each are individually trapped inside a "world", and the beat goes on. turtles below and turtles above.
the whole thing is a push-pull and negotiation, and this must be somehow linked to entropy. I wonder how pressures work across scales or magnitudes,
and if those pressures are ultimately resolvable to "cosmological constants". an argument over the price of a bauble in a bazaar might be an echo of
the gravitational exertion of Jupiter as it crosses Saturn