![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 2nd, 2006
(no subject)
Jan. 2nd, 2006 10:55 am...What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
Well, exactly. Stress that can and that cannot though. Potential clarities sometimes need a million years of brooding experiment.
...In order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought).
It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.
But to draw the limit in language you'll have to think the unsayable, i.e. what is past the drawable limit and therefore, you say, nonsense. I guess he's summoning up a buffer or insulative space, where nothing can be distinct but the beginning of the possibility of expressible distinction. But if he has grounds for this they're not given here, it just seems to be something he wants to exist?
Why are people so sure there are unsayable things, anyway? Because they lacked for words at some point? Sad, proves nothing.
But if we lack for words at any point, and language is a boundary of thoughts thinkable (or anyway of, um, thoughts that we can know we're thinking? Or anyway say we say we're thinking. Ow.)...then...
Low vocabulary -> solipsism.
And, yeah, any hole at all means the whole is not a whole so what is it. A shimmer or ripple is created for the surfing of the useless.
But I'm prejudiced. And how interesting this is so far, just from Russell's introduction and the preface. Great gift.
Well, exactly. Stress that can and that cannot though. Potential clarities sometimes need a million years of brooding experiment.
...In order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought).
It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.
But to draw the limit in language you'll have to think the unsayable, i.e. what is past the drawable limit and therefore, you say, nonsense. I guess he's summoning up a buffer or insulative space, where nothing can be distinct but the beginning of the possibility of expressible distinction. But if he has grounds for this they're not given here, it just seems to be something he wants to exist?
Why are people so sure there are unsayable things, anyway? Because they lacked for words at some point? Sad, proves nothing.
But if we lack for words at any point, and language is a boundary of thoughts thinkable (or anyway of, um, thoughts that we can know we're thinking? Or anyway say we say we're thinking. Ow.)...then...
Low vocabulary -> solipsism.
And, yeah, any hole at all means the whole is not a whole so what is it. A shimmer or ripple is created for the surfing of the useless.
But I'm prejudiced. And how interesting this is so far, just from Russell's introduction and the preface. Great gift.
(no subject)
Jan. 2nd, 2006 11:26 amhttp://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/
18 Infocom games playable by applet.
There used to be a telnet database of all of them, wonder if that's still around?
18 Infocom games playable by applet.
There used to be a telnet database of all of them, wonder if that's still around?