tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post8636732128152302068..comments2023-06-27T16:51:05.805+02:00Comments on The Pangrammaticon: The Mirror of NatureThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-64999402763384521922014-04-02T18:02:25.038+02:002014-04-02T18:02:25.038+02:00Yes, the meaning of the picture is what it represe...Yes, the meaning of the picture is what it represents. The fact is the meaning of the proposition. However, it is still the proposition or picture that "means" the fact, and in order for this to be possible there has be an additional fact, namely, that <i>this</i> picture means <i>that</i> fact. So, the meaning of the a picture is what it represents, but also <i>that</i> it represents in the first place.<br /><br />In my writing seminars I draw a rectangle on the board and ask, "What is this a picture of?" And people say, "A piece of a paper," and then I tell them they're wrong. Because that's not what I "meant". But the rectangle is a perfectly good picture of a piece of paper.<br /><br />Wittgenstein (in T) will say that "The door is open" is actually a picture of a fact. If I draw a sketch of an open door, this is a also a picture. (Interestingly, the sentence can be a picture of the sketch.)<br /><br />There's the fact of the lines on the paper in such and such an arrangement. And then there's the fact that they depict some other fact. I.e., the pictorial relation. And without that additional fact, a perfectly good picture is no picture at all.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-56238486917589869202014-04-01T12:18:58.438+02:002014-04-01T12:18:58.438+02:00T2.13-2.16 is EXTREMELY slippery ground. And I mea...T2.13-2.16 is EXTREMELY slippery ground. And I mean that in an explicitly pejorative sense: here there is a distinct need to get back to the rough ground (PI ยง107).<br /><br />But, if one must go iceskating in these areas, it of course also means that one should be careful with sweeping interpretations. I am not exactly sure that your comments contradict it, but notice that T2.221 is fairly explicit in stating that the meaning of a picture is *what* it represents [Darstellt], i.e. a possible state of affairs. No talk of meaning as pictur*ing* here nor of denying that what a picture represents is its meaning. Also notice that the "pictorial relation" [die abbildende Beziehung] cannot be distingusihed from the picture *itself*. cf. T2.1513.<br /> Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-28692590215510303902014-04-01T11:13:52.305+02:002014-04-01T11:13:52.305+02:00Yes, the possibility of appearing in the mirror is...Yes, the possibility of appearing in the mirror is a fact about the object, and the mirror, and you, the observer. As is the possibility of appearing differently at different angles and in different mirrors. There's nothing deceitful about it.<br /><br />There's nothing more or less real about the image in the mirror than the image of the thing directly observed in such-and-such light at such-and-such distance. It's just different things about the the object that come to presence.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861197.post-4278047535993741852014-03-31T16:42:36.762+02:002014-03-31T16:42:36.762+02:00As a kind of confirmation of your train of thought...As a kind of confirmation of your train of thought: I read the second quotation from WCW here and was immediately suspicious: <br /><br />"... to have believed that the reflection of nature is nature. It is not. It is only a sham nature ..."<br /><br />No, I thought, "the reflection of nature" is not a "sham nature" or a "lie." It has a truth of its own, the truth of (the) reflection.Andrew Shieldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02804655739574694901noreply@blogger.com