Tractatus Magnus Opus - Language is not Transcendental

[O'nus]

Tractatus - I really did not know what to title this thread. I will do my best to keep this interesting. This thread is inspired by my conversation with thegnome45. However, I will make it in it's own thread as it has warranted new content for explanation and consideration. There is no easy way to get into this besides bluntly stating the theories. I will be using Wittgensteins "Tractatus" as my primary source. Fundamental 7 propositions: (and he would hate me for using the word proposition) 1 - The world is everything that is the case 2 - What is the case - a fact - is the existence of states of affairs. 3 - A logical picture of facts is a thought. 4 - A thought is a proposition with a sense 5 - A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself. 6 - The general form of truth is (logical symbols that the keyboard cannot type). This is the general form of proposition. 7 - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Consider: 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, no of things. 1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts. 1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case. 2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things). 2.1 We picture facts to ourselves 2.12 A picture is a model of reality 4.1 Propositions represent the existence and non-existence of states of affairs. 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. 6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it. ^ This was drawn by Wittgenstein. Most modern people have seen this image before. It has also been frequently used to describe Gestalt psychology etc. However, when you project a duck or rabbit, you are illustrating the fundamental problem with language and our limitations of knowledge. All that we use to interpret knowledge is interpretations of the environment, even empiricism falls to this. To fully understand this, consider that many people hold language as a transcendental medium beyond their consciousness. Language is not foreign, transcendental, or divine. Language is a part of the world. Language is limited in its representation. Language cannot represent the intangible and facts but is a human method used to cognitively construct and understand the facts that encapsulate the world. Derivative proposition - language is what allows for propositional thinking that can represent pictures of the world and facts. Trying to 'say' or describe reality through language, as we are inclined to do, reduces to nonsense. Clearly, the book addresses the central problems of philosophy which deal with the world, thought and language, and presents a "solution" of these problems which is grounded in logica nd in the nature of representation. The world is represented by thought, which is a proposition with sense, since they all - world, thought, and proposition - share the same logical form. Hence, the thoguht and the proposition can be pictures of facts. To what we were referring to; O'nus: I am hungry. thegnome45: I am hungry. Both people are subject to making a linguistic construct of a fact. However, both are using the same factual expression but experiencing different facts. To better illustrate: - I is typically best understood as a relative term. - Any person can use the word I. - What you are referring to as "I" cannot be perceived, described, or explained. You are now likely inclined to note further facts of the world to explain what an "I" is. Biology, chemicals, emotions, feelings, etc. are all linguistic fundamentals to illustrate and represent the "I". Since I is a fact, contingently proven within phenomenological experiences only, the illustrations used to describe "I" are render the relative representation of "I" to nonsense. Only you, the phenomological "I" can understand and properly represent to yourself the true "I". Ludwig Wittgenstien; Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ I hope this has been enlightening. ~

[thegnome54]

- I is typically best understood as a relative term. - Any person can use the word I. - What you are referring to as "I" cannot be perceived, described, or explained. Let me just nitpick at one small part of this first - what's wrong with considering the "I" to be referring to the physical body of the speaker? This solves the problem, doesn't it?

[O'nus]

Let me just nitpick at one small part of this first - what's wrong with considering the "I" to be referring to the physical body of the speaker? This solves the problem, doesn't it? ..... Honestly, I really hope this is not the case that I completely failed at communicating Wittgensteins point. However, he does make a decent preamble to his book that only certain amounts of people will understand it.. I will try to show this again, as best as I can: The term "I" refers to an entity, experience, etc. that you, the reader, can relate to since it is your thoughts. The body in which the word "I" comes out of does not represent the location or reproduction of the "I". The physical constructs and language are all part of the world that is whole. Thus, when referring to the "I" as the body, this does not make reference to where the "I" is, say, in the body, time, space, environment, etc. Only the person saying "I" can locate and understand their own self because they are them. You cannot say that my body is wher "I" am located because you cannot experience my phenomenological self. I really hope that helps to enlighten it. ~

[NonDualistic]

Seems rather confusing way of saying that the state of being, "I am", cannot be explained or described by words, nor a description by words relating to anything in the physical nature of reality, or the physical phenomenon of self. The only way to communicate such a state would be through direct experience. Is such close to what was trying to be communicated?

[O'nus]

Seems rather confusing way of saying that the state of being, "I am", cannot be explained or described by words, nor a description by words relating to anything in the physical nature of reality, or the physical phenomenon of self. The only way to communicate such a state would be through direct experience. Is such close to what was trying to be communicated? And further - that language cannot illustrate or properly represent any fact of the world. Our language and understanding is limited to our language. (ie. "music is red", "the table feels like sandpaper", is nonsense). Our experience and interpretation of the world is constant due to our consciousness. However, the majority (if not all) of experience is ineffable. Our resulting knowledge of the world is merely the interpretation and phenomenological expression of the experienced. ~

[NonDualistic]

True, but, if the experience of the "I am" State, is beyond consciousness, which it must therefore be, as consciousness cannot describe such a state, what therefore is that which is beyond consciousness? ..and if "I" is a thought that arises upon consciousness, would there even be an specific "I" sense left therein to be cognizant of that state?

[thegnome54]

Our language and understanding is limited to our language. I disagree. Do you mean to imply that mutes do not understand the world? There are levels of thoughts and understanding which are not language. The body in which the word "I" comes out of does not represent the location or reproduction of the "I". How can you say this? I'm afraid that I am left with the same exact question as before - what's wrong with "I" being physical? It seems to me that you're implying that this "I" is non-physical or something - surely you aren't?

[O'nus]

True, but, if the experience of the "I am" State, is beyond consciousness, which it must therefore be, as consciousness cannot describe such a state, what therefore is that which is beyond consciousness? ..and if "I" is a thought that arises upon consciousness, would there even be an specific "I" sense left therein to be cognizant of that state? No - the "I am" state is not beyond consciousness. Language is merely the interpretation of the "I" and propositions cannot ascribe "I". ~

[O'nus]

I disagree. Do you mean to imply that mutes do not understand the world? There are levels of thoughts and understanding which are not language. How can you say this? I'm afraid that I am left with the same exact question as before - what's wrong with "I" being physical? It seems to me that you're implying that this "I" is non-physical or something - surely you aren't? This is getting irritating. Mutes still use language or a means of communication to express their experiences and interpret their environment. These means of communication are limited and not transcendental. I am saying that, since what we are referring to as "I" is a phenomenological context (and, which we establish is relatively reliant), it can only express the phenomenological experience of that individual. I do not know how to illustrate this any better or easier. Please refer to the Tractatus itself for further understanding as I am not compelled to regurgitate the entire book. Wittgenstein himself gives a prelude to the book that perhaps only people who have already have these thoughts will be able to understand the content. Frege and Wittgenstein even had trouble affirming his thesis. From what I understand, what Wittgenstein shows is undeniable since language is limited to representing the transcendental encapulations of ineffable experiences. No means of communication can represent "I" or any other ineffable experience. Perhaps you can best understand "I" as non-physical, but we have established that there are properties that constitute what makes up the "I". However, you will not be able to express this, with proper representation, to another conscious being. *Frown* ~

[O'nus]

In the name of Wittgenstein, if any moderator see's this thread, please lock it. I have shamed myself in trying to convey his message. ~

[thegnome54]

In the name of Wittgenstein, if any moderator see's this thread, please lock it. I have shamed myself in trying to convey his message. ~ To your credit, I'm only fifteen and this might be a bit beyond me. However, at the risk of insulting you a bit, I think you spotted the problem yourself. I do not know how to illustrate this any better or easier. There is always a simpler way of explaining things, either you're not putting all of your juice into trying or you don't have enough of a grasp of the ideas yourself to convey them to others yet. (I really don't mean that as an insult, this is evidently advanced stuff)

[O'nus]

However, at the risk of insulting you a bit, I think you spotted the problem yourself. There is always a simpler way of explaining things, either you're not putting all of your juice into trying or you don't have enough of a grasp of the ideas yourself to convey them to others yet. (I really don't mean that as an insult, this is evidently advanced stuff) There really is not a simpler way of explaining it - the very reason why is the very topic of Wittgenstein. This is the problem in itself. It cannot be explained any further, even through logic or empiricism, because you must already have an experience or thoughts related to the problems at hand. Erm.. how about this: - I think this thread was a bad idea. - I know this thread was a bad idea. *Just to note that I really struggled here for about 10 minutes to think of how to articulate Wittgensteins philosophy about the problems of articulation.* Both cases show an "I" expressing their interpretations of the thread/the environment. It is best to think of "I" on phenomenological terms. I am not very confident in explaining this any further... ~

[thegnome54]

Okay, so is Wittgenstein basically saying that it is impossible to express subjective experiences precisely using our language? That would seem fairly obvious to me - being bilingual myself, I often realize that some things can only be truly expressed in one particular language and not another (or neither). I've never had the impression that language was anything but an imperfect human construct - like math and all scientific models. What I was trying to say about mutes is a bit hard to articulate. Basically, I've experimented a bit with meditation, and in my attempts to clear my mind, I've noticed that I can still have some manner of inner dialogue in the absence of actual inner language. Currents of understanding seem to flow below the language that I've pasted clumsily over them, and they remain whether or not the language itself is present. These currents are what I try to describe when I struggle to "put something into words", and I suspect that they are the source of our understanding of the phenomenological "I", rather than any sort of inner language. Language is really only needed for interpersonal communication, and this is necessarily less efficient, as there is no direct neuronal connections between my brain and those of others. (As is evidenced by the difficulty we're having conveying Wittgenstein's ideas) Is any of that remotely close to what Wittgenstein is saying?

[Merlock]

I still can't grasp the point behind such topics... They just keep sprouting like wildfire, stating that what we perceive isn't reality and we're all useless in the big scheme because our world is based on our perceptions, etc. etc. Our perceptions are our world. Our language is not our limitation for our subconscious uses conceptual thought -- the ultimate form of thought available to us, which isn't speech-based, and from which dreams are incidentally built. So, all in all: However, when you project a duck or rabbit, you are illustrating the fundamental problem with language and our limitations of knowledge. This isn't a problem. We perceive our world. What we can't perceive doesn't concern us. And what we are used to (the duck or the rabbit) is part of our ego, the meaning in our lives, etc. In essence, I disagree with this whole running around in circles or into a dead end about perception. Live your life...enjoy it. There's no point in ultimate existence (ultimate power + ultimate knowledge), hence we live limited lives, so why strive to achieve it in the midst of a meaningful life?

[NonDualistic]

No - the "I am" state is not beyond consciousness. Language is merely the interpretation of the "I" and propositions cannot ascribe "I". ~ Are you so sure? Language is the expression of consciousness. Consciousness breaks down all that is in front of it into duality. Language is used to describe the duality. The "I am" state is Non-Duality. LAnguage cannot describe it. Consciousness cannot grasp it. So what is there left to process it? This is where Wittgenstein( by your description of his work) looks to have been going, but just didnt go far enough. Wittgenstein isnt here, you are. Continue the search, dont just leave it dead.

[NonDualistic]

This isn't a problem. We perceive our world. What we can't perceive doesn't concern us. And what we are used to (the duck or the rabbit) is part of our ego, the meaning in our lives, etc. In essence, I disagree with this whole running around in circles or into a dead end about perception. Live your life...enjoy it. There's no point in ultimate existence (ultimate power + ultimate knowledge), hence we live limited lives, so why strive to achieve it in the midst of a meaningful life? This is the reality of Free Will. Therin lies the only free choice, to choose in continuing to live the illusion tied to an ego self, or to let go of all that and be what one already is, but has not realized. that ultimate being, a state where there is no knowledge or power relating to an individual self. Such a state has though infinite potential

[O'nus]

I still can't grasp the point behind such topics... They just keep sprouting like wildfire, stating that what we perceive isn't reality and we're all useless in the big scheme because our world is based on our perceptions, etc. etc. Our perceptions are our world. Our language is not our limitation for our subconscious uses conceptual thought -- the ultimate form of thought available to us, which isn't speech-based, and from which dreams are incidentally built. This isn't a problem. We perceive our world. What we can't perceive doesn't concern us. And what we are used to (the duck or the rabbit) is part of our ego, the meaning in our lives, etc. In essence, I disagree with this whole running around in circles or into a dead end about perception. Live your life...enjoy it. There's no point in ultimate existence (ultimate power + ultimate knowledge), hence we live limited lives, so why strive to achieve it in the midst of a meaningful life? You have entirely missed the message of the post, thoroughly. I do not know how to articulate it any better than I have because this is the essence of the philosophy. Language is our only way to express what we perceive. However, language cannot properly represent many aspects of life. I give up. Just lock it down. ~

[O'nus]

Are you so sure? Language is the expression of consciousness. Consciousness breaks down all that is in front of it into duality. Language is used to describe the duality. The "I am" state is Non-Duality. LAnguage cannot describe it. Consciousness cannot grasp it. So what is there left to process it? This is where Wittgenstein( by your description of his work) looks to have been going, but just didnt go far enough. Wittgenstein isnt here, you are. Continue the search, dont just leave it dead. The "I am" state you are describing is what Wittgenstein said we can never properly represent in a proposition. It is not beyond consciousness as it is conscioussness. Language can try to describe it with biology, language, etc. but fails in representing it because it never can. Why are you bring duality into this..? I am not implying any dualism or non-dualism. ~

[NonDualistic]

The "I am" state you are describing is what Wittgenstein said we can never properly represent in a proposition. It is not beyond consciousness as it is conscioussness. Language can try to describe it with biology, language, etc. but fails in representing it because it never can. Why are you bring duality into this..? I am not implying any dualism or non-dualism. ~ You really do not want to look beyond the statement of fact that Language is not transcendental do you? I didnt have to bring duality here, as its already here. You brought it here yourself. Anytime one brings the "I " state into reference there is non-duality looking one in the face. To talk about the "I " state ,duality by necesity of language and consciousness enters the picture. Ignorance of such will not make it go away. Language and the consciousness that it arises on is born in duality. "I" is non duality. One simply cannot adequately communicate "I" to another through language/consciousness. Its a cloudy, hindered, overcast affair at best. This is basically what Wittgenstein and you said in so many words. The root of enlightenment is to realize that simple awareness is what is at the base. All else that is conscious arises from that awareness. The awareness itself is the "I" state. Consciousness is merely a "mirror" by which the "I" can "see" itsSelf and be aware of itsSelf. Without the consciousness to break everything into duality everything is as one to awareness.

[O'nus]

You really do not want to look beyond the statement of fact that Language is not transcendental do you? I didnt have to bring duality here, as its already here. You brought it here yourself. Anytime one brings the "I " state into reference there is non-duality looking one in the face. To talk about the "I " state ,duality by necesity of language and consciousness enters the picture. Ignorance of such will not make it go away. Language and the consciousness that it arises on is born in duality. "I" is non duality. One simply cannot adequately communicate "I" to another through language/consciousness. Its a cloudy, hindered, overcast affair at best. This is basically what Wittgenstein and you said in so many words. The root of enlightenment is to realize that simple awareness is what is at the base. All else that is conscious arises from that awareness. The awareness itself is the "I" state. Consciousness is merely a "mirror" by which the "I" can "see" itsSelf and be aware of itsSelf. Without the consciousness to break everything into duality everything is as one to awareness. Okay, I think we are on the same grounds. When you said that the "I" is beyond consciousness I thought you meant that it cannot even conceive of it. We can express the "I" and "mirror" it, but we can never represent it. Yeah, I think we agree.. right? ~

[thegnome54]

Was my post on the right track?

[O'nus]

Okay, so is Wittgenstein basically saying that it is impossible to express subjective experiences precisely using our language? That would seem fairly obvious to me - being bilingual myself, I often realize that some things can only be truly expressed in one particular language and not another (or neither). I've never had the impression that language was anything but an imperfect human construct - like math and all scientific models. What I was trying to say about mutes is a bit hard to articulate. Basically, I've experimented a bit with meditation, and in my attempts to clear my mind, I've noticed that I can still have some manner of inner dialogue in the absence of actual inner language. Currents of understanding seem to flow below the language that I've pasted clumsily over them, and they remain whether or not the language itself is present. These currents are what I try to describe when I struggle to "put something into words", and I suspect that they are the source of our understanding of the phenomenological "I", rather than any sort of inner language. Language is really only needed for interpersonal communication, and this is necessarily less efficient, as there is no direct neuronal connections between my brain and those of others. (As is evidenced by the difficulty we're having conveying Wittgenstein's ideas) Is any of that remotely close to what Wittgenstein is saying? We can properly express facts of the world, but we can not represent them - words are not them. Think of it as though I were to say, "My consciousness is hungry" which is nonsense. Or, "music is red" which is also nonsense. I would be skeptical to use the word subjective because we all have subjective perceptions of a chair but that does not mean our propositions about them are nonsense or false. I think we are starting to align here. What do you think...? ~

[Merlock]

Okay, if this topic is strictly about language, then...language isn't the only way to communicate. There's conceptual thought. The ultimate level of thought our mind (our subconscious) uses. Which I mentioned but briefly. So if you don't like language, why not train your interaction with your subconscious and train the conscious use of conceptual thought along with telepathy and magecraft? Or is this topic strictly and to the point about the inefficiency of language? Are you pondering of a way other than language to relay thought or are you questioning if language can be used in a better way or...? If you could sum the goal of this topic up shortly, I might grasp fully what you're saying because right now it seems like this topic is either relaying "language is inefficient and we shouldn't use it but have to" (technically 'insulting' language) or "our perception is imperfect and we are all inferior beings in the way we communicate and perceive the world" (technically insulting all human beings). So, if you could elaborate...or maybe the opposite: shortly describe the aim of the topic, I hope I'll be able to figure out the meaning herein.

[thegnome54]

We can properly express facts of the world, but we can not represent them - words are not them. Think of it as though I were to say, "My consciousness is hungry" which is nonsense. Or, "music is red" which is also nonsense. ~ I don't really follow this bit. Why should we represent facts? "Music is red" really means that the aural input you are receiving is somehow activating the area of your brain which is responsible for experiencing red. I can't really see how it's nonsense.

[grasshoppa]

This reminds me of Robert A Wilsons thoughts on the word "is" because nothing really "is" it just seems to be that way. Also, you should check out Terrence Mckennas videos on language. How it is inadiquate...What communication would be like if we spoke with electric pulses or some other abstract form of language. By the way, gnome I thought you were older than 15 from reading your other posts.