MEETING 2
[19:15] <Machiavel> I thought W. had an interesting point to make in 14
[19:15] <Machiavel> About definitions
[19:15] <@Avinite> Yes, I like 14
[19:15] <@Avinite> Its a prime example, to me, about how you CAN twist a definition to fit
[19:16] <@Avinite> but that doesn't mean that it would be good to do so
[19:16] <Machiavel> The way a definition of tools as things that 'serve to modify something' is, in effect, a tautologiy if you bend it enough
[19:16] <Machiavel> And the natural definition of words as 'things that signify something' is the same.
[19:17] <@Avinite> Compare this also to how we were trying to say things like "is taller than" under the Augustinian conception, last week
[19:17] <Machiavel> And that is the point W. was driving at, correct? That this is a natural inclination we have towards the purpose of words?
[19:17] <@Avinite> Perhaps it approaches it from another angle, but its the same sort of twisting of a definition I think
[19:17] <@Avinite> The point to me here is that saying that all words 'signify' something is -- well
[19:17] <@Avinite> You can make it 'true', but its broad and very crude
[19:18] <@Avinite> And requires a lot of twisting
[19:18] <@Avinite> and isn't very helpful
[19:18] <@Avinite> "All tools modify something" - well ... yes, I guess so.. But really that doesn't tell us anything about tools, just how you can manipulate some parts of the language surrounding them
[19:19] <Machiavel> He sort of leaves it dangling, though. In other words: he shows that this definition is clumsy -- but then he moves on. I guess he's taking us down a sidestreet before continuing down the main boulevard
[19:19] <@Avinite> How queer does 'modifying the knowledge of a things length' sound?
03[19:19] * Joins: Starmix (Starmix@Rizon-E8F81BB4.croy.cable.virginmedia.com)
[19:19] <Machiavel> It's miles away from the original definition
[19:19] <Starmix> alright nerds
[19:20] <@Avinite> Yes, it's definitely a sidestreet, its a sort of illuminating little example
[19:20] <@Avinite> Hey starmix, welcome back
[19:20] <Starmix> thanks
[19:20] <@Avinite> What did everyone think of 9?
[19:20] <@Avinite> I know last week there was a lot of debate about whether you can ostensively teach x word or y word
[19:20] <@Avinite> Did this section numbers sound true?
[19:20] <@Avinite> section on numbers*
[19:20] <Starmix> a bit odd i thought
[19:20] <Starmix> preferred ten
[19:20] <Nicolet> I am still reading it, as I thought the meeting was first due in 40 minutes. I'll be right with you.
[19:21] <Nicolet> Nearly done.
[19:21] <@Avinite> Righto Nicolet-- sorry for the confusion
[19:21] <@Avinite> 10 is interesting in how it relates 'referring' to 'signifies'
[19:21] <@Avinite> Makes it clear that for Wittgenstein its' possible to say that all words refer to something
[19:21] <@Avinite> and have pure referentialism
[19:22] <Machiavel> I think it helps to differentiate between classes of words -- a point W. takes up again in 12
[19:22] <Coquillard> "In this place the pointing occurs in the use of words too and not merely in learning the use." Can anyone clear this up for me? It's from 9.
[19:22] <@Avinite> "Oh, what does taller refer to -" -- it refers to the act of being taller!
[19:22] <Coquillard> *in this case
[19:22] <@Avinite> This is the same sort of stretching Lemniscate was doing last week I think
[19:22] <@Avinite> And the same sort of stretching involved in saying all tools modify something
[19:22] <@Avinite> Coquillard, let's see...
[19:23] <Machiavel> I got a little tripped on that too, Coqu; I thought that pointing had always occured in the use of words, and not just their teaching
03[19:23] * Joins: Trop (qwebirc@AE8A97CD.3B37714.7FFD806C.IP)
[19:23] <@Avinite> I suppose because, you're pointing at different objects and saying "this" "this" "there"
[19:23] <@Avinite> and so on
[19:24] <@Avinite> But there has to be something socially constructed surrounding the use that lets the child know that you're not just... naming the objects in a normal way
02[19:24] * Quits: Trop (qwebirc@AE8A97CD.3B37714.7FFD806C.IP)
[19:24] <Pooka> 'this' is only THIS whilst it is being pointed at, after that it is just another object 'slab', it is only 'this' (slab) due to the active pointing
[19:24] <@Avinite> This is a sort of  "pointing that occurs in the use", but its a very cryptic phrase
[19:24] <@Avinite> Yes, thats true, Pooka!
[19:25] <@Avinite> A child who comes down the next day
[19:25] <Machiavel> That was a good point
[19:25] <@Avinite> points at the slab and says "This!"
[19:25] <@Avinite> Didn't really understand what was meant
[19:25] <@Avinite> or even, answers "this" to "what is the object here called?"
[19:25] <Coquillard> Thanks Pooka/Avinite. I kind of grasped that from the original, but it the phrasing was a little tricky so I wanted to make sure I got his point.
[19:26] <@Avinite> It's definitely a really strange phrasing
[19:26] <@Avinite> But do people agree with Wittgenstein here that
[19:26] <@Avinite> whilst it might be possible to ostensively teach the first few numbers (1, 5, 3, 7, )
[19:27] <@Avinite> It's only "the use of the first five or six elementary number-words" that are learnt in this way
[19:27] <@Avinite> Noone has "13,683" pointed out to them
[19:27] <@Avinite> "THIS is 13,683"
[19:27] <Starmix> one can see why no one has 13,683 pointed out to them
[19:27] <Starmix> but why not seven?
[19:27] <@Avinite> Six is a bit of an arbitrary cut-off point I suppose
01[19:27] <Witty> the sequence is taught, but generally, the objects and actions need to pointed out as the child grows
[19:28] <Starmix> well it looks to me like any cut off point is going to be arbitrary
[19:28] <@Avinite> I quite agree starmix, and we can imagine a child raised as a slave in an industrial society
[19:28] <@Avinite> Whose only job is to count iron nails for the rest of his life
[19:28] <@Avinite> And who is ostensively taught up to... I don't know, much higher than we would be
[19:28] <@Avinite> He could be taught by pointing up to 20, say?
[19:28] <@Avinite> or 30!
[19:28] <@Avinite> I don't know, it could be other than it is
[19:28] <Starmix> well i don;t think witty is saying that ti's impossible to learn this way
[19:28] <Starmix> just that it doesn't actually happen
[19:29] <@Avinite> Yeah, absolutely
[19:29] <Machiavel> Plus, we can get into all sorts of nitty gritty details about education -- how, for instance, the rules of arithmatic can be taught in a classroom and how the number 13,683 can be extrapolated from those rules
[19:29] <@Avinite> Most children have a sort of cut off point
[19:29] <Starmix> i haven't read it though obviously ^^
[19:29] <Starmix> yeah but that would be fine by witty
[19:29] <Starmix> i assume
[19:29] <Nicolet> Perhaps we are shown one object, when learning the meaning of "1", two objects when "2" and so forth, until we see the underlying pattern, and we understand the difference between one object and the number 1?
[19:29] <@Avinite> Oh yeah absolutely
[19:30] <@Avinite> And absolutely right Nicolet, though this will come under question much later
[19:30] <Starmix> what nicolet says sounds at least reasonable to me
[19:30] <Nicolet> I mean, there must be some underlying structure that you learn, and children have problems with numbers early, because they havn't understood this connection. Okay.
[19:30] <Starmix> although i don't know what i thnk about it
[19:30] <Machiavel> I think the point being made in the background of this conversation is that numbers may be taught in the same way objects are -- but both are 'unlike' in their function, as W. goes on to explain in 10
[19:31] <@Avinite> Yeah absolutely, you can teach them in the same way up to a point, but they don't function in the same way at all
[19:31] <@Avinite> "Get me five apples"
[19:31] <@Avinite> You don't go looking for "five" and then check that they are apples
[19:31] <@Avinite> No, you go looking for apples, and then make sure you have five
[19:32] <Machiavel> 'five' modifies 'apples;' 'apples' don't modify 'five'
[19:32] <@Avinite> In that case, yes
[19:32] <Starmix> get me five apples isn't what you say to a kid that you want to teach maths to though is it
[19:32] <Starmix> you say there are five apples in that box of apples you've just got me
[19:32] <Starmix> or whatever
[19:32] <@Avinite> That's true
[19:33] <@Avinite> And if they know 'apple' they might be able to get that
[19:33] <@Avinite> five means the number
[19:33] <@Avinite> and doesn't mean 'in a box' or 'close together' or something
[19:33] <@Avinite> 'of varied colours'
01[19:33] <Witty> you teach from 1 to 20, and then teach each number from 10 to 10 up to a hundred, and from there on from 100 to 100, and the rest can be extrapolated by what is already known
[19:34] <Starmix> i suppose that's more or less what wittgenstein says
[19:34] <@Avinite> Yes, I would say so..
01[19:34] <Witty> have you all forgotten how you learned? :P
[19:35] <Machiavel> So, is W. saying that the definition of words as things that
[19:35] <Starmix> haven't the foggiest mate
[19:35] <@Avinite> This is why I like Wittgenstein - because its all so grounded, you can look back at how you actually learnt and how children learn
[19:35] <Nicolet> Number theory is extremely complex to comprehend sometimes. Where are we in the text?
[19:35] <@Avinite> 9, really, Nicolet
[19:35] <Machiavel> 'signify' other things is only applicable to some words?
[19:36] <@Avinite> Machiavel - He's saying that, whilst you can twist it to apply to all words, it's better suited to some than others
[19:36] <Coquillard> I think he's saying that what words "signify" depends on their use/context.
[19:36] <@Avinite> A saw modifies something in a more clear way than a ruler does
[19:37] <Machiavel> Gothca
[19:37] <Machiavel> Gotcha*
[19:37] <@Avinite> But you CAN sort of twist it, if you want to
[19:37] <@Avinite> And he gives an example of when you'd want to twist it
[19:37] <@Avinite> the Lewis Carrol thing
[19:37] <@Avinite> Carroll*
[19:37] <Starmix> does it matter how we learned though?
[19:37] <Starmix> it's not really a philosophical claim is it
[19:37] <@Avinite> That's a good question
[19:38] <Starmix> i mean maybe we learned one way and maybe parents on china or on zod or wahtever teach their kids another way
[19:38] <Machiavel> I know W. had a very tricky view of philosophy and its purpose
[19:38] <Starmix> or maybe every person learned the same way and they just happened to
[19:38] <Starmix> so what?
[19:38] <Starmix> in china*
[19:38] <@Avinite> The whole thing about how people learn ties it back to the opening of 1 I suppose
[19:39] <@Avinite> Which makes it far more limited in scope than I thought
[19:39] <@Avinite> Its more like , #1 is the way people think about learning language, this is sort of symptomatic of a huge range of philosophical confusion
[19:39] <@Avinite> but actually -- learning occurs in THIS way
[19:39] <@Avinite> But there has to be more to it..
[19:39] <Starmix> isn't 1 about the way language is rather than the way it's structured?
[19:39] <@Avinite> hmm
[19:39] <Starmix> because that sounds more like philosophy
[19:40] <Starmix> sorry
[19:40] <Machiavel> Well, the way we learn how to do something is inextricably tied up with how we do that thing; in the first 7 propositions, W. says that to gain a clear understanding of a language we have to see how its used and, by association, how it's taught
[19:40] <Starmix> the way language is rather than the way it;'s learned
[19:40] <Starmix> that's fair enough i suppose
[19:40] <Starmix> although i'm not quite sure i buy the second step
[19:40] <Machiavel> We have to remember that W. had an oddball view of philosophy and its proper function. In fact, I think this book is eventually going to go into that subject -- though I'm no expert
[19:40] <@Avinite> I guess its because we're still talking about extremely simple languages
[19:41] <@Avinite> We learn how to follow the order "slab!" directly because of how we're taught
[19:41] <@Avinite> And how to follow a,b,c,d numbers
[19:41] <Starmix> the slab example isn't a proper language though is it
[19:41] <@Avinite> We're not yet talking about real-English
[19:41] <Starmix> right
[19:41] <@Avinite> Ah, that's a good question, let's get on to that
[19:41] <@Avinite> Is the "slab!" language 'complete'?
[19:41] <Machiavel> W. does point out that both English and this language are incomplete
[19:41] <Starmix> because that's absolutely not what someone that speaks english does when they hear the word slab!
[19:42] <Machiavel> In 17 he goes into that
[19:42] <Machiavel> Being complete, I mean
[19:43] <Machiavel> Never mind got the wrong number -- hold on
[19:43] <Machiavel> Yeah, sorry, its 18
[19:43] <@Avinite> I mean
[19:44] <@Avinite> there's a sense in a language being 'complete' if its functionally complete
[19:44] <Machiavel> "If you want to say that this shews them to be incomplete, ask yourself whether our language is complete;--whether it was so before the symbolism of chemistry and the notation of the infinitesimal calculus were incorporated in it
[19:44] <@Avinite> "Slab!" to get slabs works for people building a house
[19:44] <@Avinite> (in a limited sense)
[19:44] <@Avinite> Of course its not complete in that it doesnt have words for these nouns or these verbs....
[19:44] <Starmix> it works for a and b building a house
[19:44] <Machiavel> That's a good distinction to make
[19:44] <Starmix> but that's not really building a house
[19:44] <Coquillard> Could you say that a particular language game is ever complete?
[19:44] <Starmix> that's jsut someone asking for parts
[19:45] <Machiavel> Insofar the builders are concerend there language is as complete as can be
[19:45] <Starmix> if you really want to build a house you're going to need a much more compelx language
02[19:47] * Disconnected
Session Close: Sun Sep 01 19:47:39 2013

Session Start: Sun Sep 01 19:47:39 2013
Session Ident: #wittgenstein
02[19:47] * Attempting to rejoin channel #wittgenstein
03[19:47] * Rejoined channel #wittgenstein
03[19:47] * Topic is '/lit/ Reading Group for the Philosophical Investigations | Second meeting: Sunday 1st September 7pm GMT | Reading: Sections 8-23'
03[19:47] * Set by Avinite!~Avinite@Rizon-223E103.as13285.net on Sun Aug 25 17:18:12
[19:48] <Starmix> that's not what it means in the aphorism
[19:48] <@Avinite> No, but they're mainly sort of practical concerns to do with time/effort, that you have, right?
[19:48] <Starmix> in the aphorism it just means pass me the thing that i'm telling you to pass me
[19:48] <@Avinite> Like -- how do they eat at the end of the day?
[19:48] <@Avinite> Things like that
[19:49] <Starmix> well that's one sort of thing
[19:49] <Machiavel> So, what's the driving point of this digression? Are we saying that W.'s model language is fishy or...?
[19:49] <Starmix> but also you know, you can't tell a subordinate to do the kitchen
02[19:49] * Quits: Witty (Witty@Rizon-53322185.dsl.telepac.pt) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[19:49] <Starmix> no idea really
[19:49] <Starmix> i'm blagging this, i haven't read the book
[19:50] <@Avinite> It's constructive blagging I feel,
[19:50] <@Avinite> But maybe we ought just scale back the purpose
[19:50] <Coquillard> The model language was chosen specifically as an example of something that can't represent all language.
[19:50] <@Avinite> And talk about a game made for passing blocks for one person to the other
[19:51] <Starmix> sure
[19:51] <@Avinite> One of the parts of the text I thought people might have a problem with is the start of 19
[19:51] <Machiavel> Yeah I'm just rereading that now
[19:51] <@Avinite> I mean, its true that when we consider a language built just for battle commands, we imagine a form of life
[19:51] <@Avinite> But this seems a bit cheap! We're already imagining a battle
[19:52] <@Avinite> Does imagining ANY language mean imagining a form of life?
[19:52] <Machiavel> I think it's a very interesting point now that I'm looking at it again
[19:52] <@Avinite> It's always felt a bit cheap to me to do that
[19:52] <Coquillard> You can't imagine forms of language without also imagining their use, which is in life. Is that what he's saying?
02[19:52] * Quits: BroomOftheSystem (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[19:52] <Machiavel> Imagine the tribe of builders from the first few propositions
[19:52] <Machiavel> They're a peacful people
[19:52] <@Avinite> Yes, you can't imagine a language without imagining a whole aspect of life
[19:53] <Starmix> how are we supposed to work that out? just introspect
[19:53] <Starmix> ?
[19:53] <Machiavel> Quaint
[19:53] <@Avinite> Hmm
[19:53] <Machiavel> They've never been to war -- they don't even have a word for the act of killing in their vocubularly. Given what we know of their language, we can only imagine them building
[19:53] <@Avinite> I think its more like
03[19:53] * Joins: hiinternetfriends (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP)
[19:54] <@Avinite> imagine the use of language involved in... asking a question
[19:54] <Machiavel> Because that's the only complex task their language allows for -- it's the only complex task they seem to do.
[19:54] <@Avinite> The act of a question mark, the words like "would" "can" "should" and so on
[19:54] <Starmix> wait what?
[19:54] <Starmix> what if one of them shags the otehrs wife
03[19:54] * Joins: Joe_ (qwebirc@4C249ED7.4900CCFC.7EB8783E.IP)
[19:54] <@Avinite> And you have to imagine such things as
[19:54] <@Avinite> A world in which some people have information that others don't
[19:54] <Starmix> the husband doesn't need to have a word for killing in order to kick the chaps head in
[19:54] <@Avinite> A human curiosity to find out the information from others
[19:55] <@Avinite> and a whole sense of social practices about question-asking
[19:55] <Pooka> then you change the lang game, or, they have a different lang game for such matters
[19:55] <Machiavel> If people shagged each other's wife in the builder's community they'd have a word for 'shag'
[19:55] <Starmix> why do you say that?
[19:55] <@Avinite> You can't simply imagine "could" "should " "can" as having the same meaning in a society without language
[19:55] <Starmix> it might be the first time it had happened
[19:55] <@Avinite> I think we've skipped the point a little bit in that
[19:55] <Machiavel> Then that's hardly a way of life
[19:55] <@Avinite> For the builders tribe
[19:55] <Machiavel> It's an isolated event
[19:56] <@Avinite> They could have all sorts of other language aspects
[19:56] <Starmix> yes that's true i suppose
[19:56] <Machiavel> If it becomes a part of their way of life, if it happens consistently, then the language whill change
[19:56] <Pooka> they have the described lang game for their building. they might be able to talk about other things in another lang game, but that is different from the building lang game
[19:56] <Machiavel> And it will reflect that way of life
[19:56] <@Avinite> Exactly Pooka
[19:56] <@Avinite> The builders may have an entirely separate language game for describing food for dinner
[19:56] <@Avinite> a separate one for war
[19:56] <@Avinite> a separate one for marital disputes
[19:56] <Machiavel> Okay
[19:57] <Starmix> couldn't they do such and such without having language describing it though
03[19:57] * Joins: canIpayyouincattle (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP)
[19:57] <Starmix> what if they just never communicate with eaach other
[19:57] <Starmix> they're all blind deaf and dome or something
[19:57] <Starmix> dumb*
[19:57] <@Avinite> Yes, thats all well and good but
01[19:57] <Yes> Still, how can you imagine a language without the society that accompanies it?
[19:57] <@Avinite> I think it stretches what it means to imagine a form of life
[19:57] <@Avinite> We needn't imagine their actual lives
[19:57] <@Avinite> But instead, just imagine, uh
02[19:57] * Quits: hiinternetfriends (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[19:58] <@Avinite> in the 'slab!' instance - we can imagine that one of them takes orders from the other one
[19:58] <Starmix> Well i don't know but that doesn't show taht i can't
[19:58] <Machiavel> A facet of their life -- I think.
[19:58] <@Avinite> that their culture has the concept of giving orders
[19:58] <@Avinite> And that's more or less all you need
[19:58] <Machiavel> What are we imagining when we 'imagine' a language anyway? Are the words laid out in front of us? How could we imagine a language like English, with thousands and thousands of words
01[19:58] <Yes>  Does imagining ANY language mean imagining a form of life?<- But see, you're doing just that, in imagining their activity
[19:58] <@Avinite> Yeah, a facet of life
[19:59] <@Avinite> for which the language works
[19:59] <Starmix> i think machiavel is getting somewhere
[19:59] <@Avinite> I mean, try and imagine a language without imagining some form of life?
[19:59] <Starmix> this all sounds a bit fishy to me, do we even understand what's involved in imaginign something
[19:59] <@Avinite> Yes, that's a good point about imagining English
[19:59] <Machiavel> I think to imagine a language is to imagine its use, and this is synonomous with the facet of life it is involved in
[19:59] <Starmix> and what the limits of what we can and can't imagine are
01[19:59] <Yes> so what Witty says is true, the language always reflects it's context
[19:59] <Starmix> or even whtehr we are or aren't presently imagining some thing or other
[19:59] <Coquillard> I think he's just trying to emphasize that language is tied to the behavior it's used with.
[20:00] <Machiavel> ^Agreed
[20:00] <@Avinite> But we might not be imagining The English language, but might be imagining things like
[20:00] <@Avinite> requesting, commanding, joking, singing, telling riddles...
[20:00] <@Avinite> and the processes that go alongside them
03[20:00] * Joins: ggggg (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP)
[20:00] <Machiavel> (In English)
[20:00] <@Avinite> Yeah
[20:00] <@Avinite> the English version of questions - like,  we raise our voice at the end of questions, use a question mark when writing down
[20:01] <Joe_> So we wouldn't imagine the words thmeselves and instead the behaviors described by those words?
[20:01] <@Avinite> Look as if we expect an answer
[20:01] <@Avinite> You could imagine the word, but could you imagine the word as being meaningful without any of the context?
[20:01] <Machiavel> One thing that's strange about prop. 19 (and there are plenty of strange things about it) is that it starts with this question, about language and forms of life, and then dives into a tangent about whether a word is a sentence or a sentence is a word
[20:02] <@Avinite> Yes, the whole part about whether its a sentence or a word seems a little inconsequential to me
[20:02] <Machiavel> Are the two connected in any way?
[20:02] <@Avinite> "What does it matter?" I find myself saying
[20:03] <@Avinite> They don't seem to be, do they?
02[20:03] * Quits: canIpayyouincattle (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:03] <Machiavel> iunno
[20:03] <Joe_> The conveyance of a whole idea seems to be what wittgenstein was getting at to me with sentence/word thing.
01[20:03] <Yes> it's like what he says ahead "Is it raining? Yes." and asks if we should consider the question a part of the statement
01[20:04] <Yes> he didn't clarify
02[20:04] * Quits: ggggg (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:04] <@Avinite> Does anyone who calls out "slab!" really mean "Bring me a slab?"
[20:04] <Joe_> A single word can express an entire idea of "Being me the slab!" So a word can be a sentence in itself.
03[20:04] * Joins: jiiji (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP)
[20:05] <@Avinite> I think the answer here is no, what they really mean is "Slab!"
[20:05] <@Avinite> You can extend this to "bring me a slab" if you want
[20:05] <@Avinite> But its not like you secretly meant that all along
[20:05] <Pooka> they do not have to mean 'slab!' as you are translating between games
[20:06] <Machiavel> Yeah, ultimatly this is about translation, I think, so it'd probably be best to tackle it from that perspective.
[20:06] <Pooka> they can mean 'bring me a slab' in their lang with the use of 'slab' but when you write it out as an example in our lang game here, you have to translate it to bring me a slab
[20:06] <@Avinite> Yes, when you say "Slab!" you want 'bring me a slab', but theres no reason not to say that "you want 'Slab!'"
[20:06] <@Avinite> But it all seems a bit of an inconsequential little translation issue
[20:06] <Pooka> and this relates back to last week, where we tried to make the builder game 'work' by suggesting the encapsulated commands in single words etc
[20:07] <Machiavel> W. did admit he was a bad guide in philosophy
[20:07] <@Avinite> Yeah, and it only supports the fact that the Augustine picture has been subverted again
[20:07] <Pooka> it's pretty much what we did last week ourselves when first tackling the builders
[20:07] <@Avinite> Yes, this might just be an instance of a sidestreet
-
01[20:07] Pooka is ~Pooka@Rizon-E7FBA379.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com * Pooka
01[20:07] Pooka on #wittgenstein
01[20:07] Pooka using *.rizon.net Where are you?
01[20:07] Pooka End of /WHOIS list.
-
[20:07] <Machiavel> He's spending a lot of time looking at a queer house on some London sidestreet instead of taking us to Big Ben
[20:08] <Pooka> and from that point of view, helpful. the reader raises these questions themselves, the guide lets these thoughts occur, then shows awareness of them (maybe!)
[20:08] <Machiavel> Queer little houses are a part of any city, after all
[20:08] <@Avinite> Yeah, he raises the questions, because he wants to guide us to an answer of a certain type
[20:08] <@Avinite> but perhaps this isn't so important
[20:09] <Coquillard> I don't think we would necessarily need to translate "slab!" into "bring me a slab!" in our language.
[20:09] <Coquillard> I think he's saying that "slab!" is ultimately the same thing in either language game: elliptical until context is provided.
[20:10] <Machiavel> He makes an enlighetening little remark at the end of prop 20 about Russian
[20:10] <Machiavel> "In Russian one says 'stone red' instead of 'the stone is red;' do they feel the copyla to be missing in the sense, or attach it in thought?"
[20:11] <@Avinite> One of the primary themes of Wittgenstein I think, something that is always true is that he's trying to show that
02[20:11] * Quits: jiiji (qwebirc@71F30A89.E400EFE0.FCA21638.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:11] <@Avinite> language is one way, but it could just as easily be another
[20:11] <@Avinite> Yes, there's no reason to further translate I think
[20:11] <@Avinite> Now, I like the bit in 21 about
[20:11] <@Avinite> "Isn't the weather glorious today?"
[20:12] <@Avinite> I mean, you can say this is a question - but it really is an assertion
[20:12] <Machiavel> A good way to classify things seems to be by their use, rather than their grammatical structure
[20:12] <@Avinite> In order to say its 'really a question' you have to say -- whats it asking?
[20:13] <Machiavel> At least that's the gut-feeling I got from that passage; going back to the arbitrary nature of language
[20:13] <@Avinite> And youd have to come up with some answer reminiscent of "what does this tool modify?"
[20:13] <@Avinite> "This question is asking... whether you're happy to share the speakers opinion as to the weather...?"
[20:14] <Pooka> i think it is an assertion about the weather -- but it is a question about agreement, yes
02[20:14] * Quits: Joe_ (qwebirc@4C249ED7.4900CCFC.7EB8783E.IP) (Quit: Rizon webchat: http://qchat.rizon.net/)
[20:14] <@Avinite> In a sense, but only in the sense that a ruler modifys our knowledge of somethings length?
[20:14] <Machiavel> Another illuminating little passage: "Similarly, one says 'you will do this'not as a prophecy but as a command. What makes it the one or the other?
[20:14] <@Avinite> Possible?
[20:15] <Machiavel> End of 21
[20:15] <Pooka> maybe, but i dislike the tool bit to start with
[20:15] <@Avinite> Yeah, "you will do this" has the form of a prophecy, but can be a command
[20:15] <Coquillard> what don't you like about it, pooka?
[20:15] <@Avinite> Oh, any reason Pooka?
[20:15] <Pooka>  tools example: i think trying to answer that question is not the solution, you should say that they are different types of tools. the definition of tools given applies to tools for modifying material, not tools for measuring. It is a bad question cast over too wide a remit than it should be, not a slippery answer
[20:16] <@Avinite> Absolutely right, in the same way that Augustine's conception of language is
[20:16] <@Avinite> "true, for a narrow circumscribed area,"
[20:16] <Pooka> as with the weather, the point is missed, it is not a question about the weather. there is a question there and there is weather mentioned, but to say it is a question about the weather is misattribution
[20:16] <@Avinite> And how
[20:16] <Pooka> yep
[20:16] <@Avinite> "games are things that move things around on a surface"
[20:16] <@Avinite> is true for board games, but not for other games
[20:17] <Machiavel> I feel like these are illustrative examples about being scrupulus with your definitions. In fact, the whole work seems pretty interactive so far -- a lot of question marks without an immediate answer, leading the reader to form their own thoughts on the matter.
[20:18] <@Avinite> We can imagine a culture which phrased all assertions in question form followed by 'yes'
[20:18] <Machiavel> Rather than W. just formulating his own theory about language and trying to convince you of it
[20:18] <@Avinite> That's very much a part of the book for me, Machiavel
[20:19] <@Avinite> Now this part for me was quite important, in 22:
[20:19] <@Avinite> "It is a mistake only if one thinks that the assertion consists of two acts, entertaining and asserting"
[20:20] <@Avinite> This is about when you try and phrase every sentence as
[20:20] <@Avinite> "It is asserted that such and such is the case"
[20:20] <@Avinite> So you start thinking of every single statement as something like a two part act
[20:21] <@Avinite> One where you say something that could be or could not be true, and then ALSO the act of claiming it to be the case
[20:21] <@Avinite> But in fact, asserting is just a single action
[20:22] <Machiavel> Namely, claiming such and such to be the case?
[20:22] <Machiavel> I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with Frege
[20:22] <@Avinite> Claiming that such and such is the case, yes,
[20:22] <Pooka> how does it deal with negative existentials, with fictions, things with no referent  in the 'real world'
[20:23] <@Avinite> It's true but can be misleading
[20:23] <@Avinite> So if I were to say something like
[20:23] <@Avinite> "Macbeth is Scottish"
[20:23] <@Avinite> Then according to Frege what I'm really saying is
[20:23] <@Avinite> "it is asserted that: Macbeth is Scottish is the case"
[20:24] <@Avinite> So I'm doing 2 actions, not only saying "Macbeth is Scottish" but also saying "And this is true!"
[20:25] <@Avinite> This isn't too important right now
[20:25] <@Avinite> But its worth thinking about
03[20:25] * Joins: Mitt (qwebirc@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
[20:26] <Machiavel> I'll probably hit up the SEP articles on Frege and Russell
[20:26] <@Avinite> It's a good idea, theres  a lot of stuff in here which is relevant
[20:26] <Machiavel> Also, Ramsey -- because I'm hearing some of him in this passage, and I know W. talked to him a lot.
[20:27] <Mitt> Hey
[20:27] <@Avinite> Ramsey did some unique work in mathematics, but its not necessary really for an understanding of PI
03[20:27] * Joins: luyuping (qwebirc@ED105FC6.FC56B95B.8BAB2FD2.IP)
[20:27] <Machiavel> Oh not a neccesity -- but his redundency theory of truth seems to be echoed in some thoughts here, if I'm reading them correctly
[20:27] <Machiavel> But like you said not all of this is terribly important
[20:27] <@Avinite> Ramseys?
[20:28] <Machiavel> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_theory_of_truth
[20:28] <@Avinite> Oh yes, absolutely
[20:28] <@Avinite> I remember this
[20:29] <luyuping> what proposition are we up to?
[20:29] <@Avinite> Yeah its all reminiscent of it for sure
[20:29] <Machiavel> Shame the guy died so young -- got a lot done in 26 years, could have done a lot more
[20:29] <@Avinite> 22, luyuping, but there's no need to keep it entirely in order, if you;d like to jump back and talk about something
[20:30] <@Avinite> 10-15 seem to be all of a similar theme though
[20:30] <@Avinite> To me, anyway
[20:31] <Coquillard> Yeah, I think it's wrong to assume that each proposition has a strictly unique point. Some of them just serve to embellish other points.
[20:31] <Coquillard> Maybe "point" is the wrong word to use, but I think you get what I mean.
[20:31] <@Avinite> Yeah, in the Baker Hacker exegesis they have neat little maps of how the sections all relate to one another
[20:31] <@Avinite> and some of them are dead-ends and some of them lead on to others
[20:31] <Machiavel> That's cool
[20:32] <@Avinite> It can help a lot, particularly when
[20:32] <@Avinite> 34 and 38 both tie into 43, but all the numbers in between lead to a different  dead end: 44
[20:32] <@Avinite> Jeez
[20:32] <@Avinite> [not really, that was made up]
03[20:32] * Joins: Mitt__ (~chatzilla@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
[20:32] <@Avinite> But it can get quite complicated
[20:33] <Machiavel> I wonder if it could have been written any other way
02[20:33] * Quits: Mitt__ (~chatzilla@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
[20:33] <@Avinite> Certainly not by Wittgenstein
[20:33] <@Avinite> Lord knows he tried
03[20:33] * Joins: Mitt__ (~chatzilla@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
02[20:33] * Quits: Mitt__ (~chatzilla@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
[20:33] <@Avinite> So
[20:34] <Machiavel> 23?
[20:34] <@Avinite> 23 goes on to give a list of some of the types of statement which a philosophy of language has to explain
[20:34] <@Avinite> It's quite an unusual list
[20:34] <luyuping> What does freges assertion sign mean?
[20:34] <@Avinite> I mean, for the time
[20:34] <@Avinite> Frege would never have thought about acting in a play!
[20:34] <Machiavel> HA
[20:34] <Machiavel> Germans
[20:35] <@Avinite> ⊢
[20:35] <@Avinite> That is Frege's assertion sign,
02[20:35] * Quits: Mitt (qwebirc@A3D6483F.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:35] <@Avinite> I don't know TOO much about it but, essentially you put it on the front of any sentence to say that you hold it to be true
[20:35] <@Avinite> Think of it like a question mark but for declarative sentences
[20:35] <@Avinite> ⊢my bed is comfy
[20:36] <@Avinite> Could be written: Is my bed comfy? Yes.
[20:36] <@Avinite> or
[20:36] <Machiavel> I think that 23 hints at the idea that any philosophy of language wil be transient in nature
03[20:36] * Joins: Mitt (~chatzilla@AF9E5660.E4404CD6.7FFD806C.IP)
[20:36] <@Avinite> It is stated that my bed is comfy is the case
[20:36] <Machiavel> Because language-games are dynamic
[20:36] <Machiavel> So the study of them has to be fluid.
[20:36] <Machiavel> But I'm not sure -- I'll have to reread it again
[20:36] <Mitt> we're still on 22?
[20:37] <Machiavel> We've hopped over to 23 for the time being
[20:37] <@Avinite> I don't think theres too much to discuss in 23
[20:38] <@Avinite> Just that all these crazy different things, like singing, are so different from what logicians have said about language
[20:38] <@Avinite> [including Tractatus]
[20:38] <Machiavel> Alright, I'll pocket it for later
[20:38] <@Avinite> And this is the depth and richness of language which he sees now
[20:38] <@Avinite> He has to explain praying/singing/making up a story
[20:38] <@Avinite> and so on
[20:38] <Machiavel> Gotcha
[20:38] <Mitt> what defines the "kind" of sentence he talk about in the 1ts phrase?
[20:39] <@Avinite> in 23, Mitt?
[20:39] <Mitt> talks*
[20:39] <Mitt> yeah
[20:39] <@Avinite> I suppose a 'kind of sentence' is a type of language game in which the sentence is spoken
[20:39] <@Avinite> So uh
[20:39] <Mitt> i mean, is the kind something contained IN the sentence, or its definition requires experience?
[20:39] <@Avinite> praying is one type of kind
[20:39] <@Avinite> Oh
[20:40] <Pooka> with 23, it is interesting that a lot of these examples are still primarily verbal/written
[20:40] <Coquillard> I think 23 also implies that future, as-yet-uncodified behavior can develop which also contradicts the logicians picture of the structure of language once it enters into language.
[20:40] <@Avinite> It requires experience, compare this to 21
[20:40] <Coquillard> Which supports the whole fluid, dynamic nature of it.
[20:40] <@Avinite> "Isn;t the weather glorious?" would only contain a question WITHIN it
[20:40] <@Avinite> its grammar or whatever
[20:40] <Pooka> earlier he said the colour samples were part of a language, in 23 we might expect to see language using more non-verbal symbol manipulation examples
[20:40] <@Avinite> but the experience tells you -- it's actually an assertion
[20:41] <@Avinite> That's true Pooka, maybe this is too limited, we might want to talk about body language, smoke signals, dance, and so on
[20:41] <@Avinite> But we wouldnt necessarily be tempted into seeing those things as similar
[20:41] <@Avinite> Whereas the verbal/written things, have "the same appearance" like levers in a train car
[20:42] <@Avinite> So it's more necessary to separate them out
[20:42] <@Avinite> That's my best guess
[20:42] <Pooka> hm could be
[20:42] <Mitt> So this "kind" is defined by the language game right? Could it be said that this kind is the role of the sentence in the LG?
[20:42] <Machiavel> Welp, I have to head out. Once again, a lot of stuff cropped up in the discussion that I didn't get in my preliminary notes -- I'll definitly be seeing you guys next meeting.
[20:42] <@Avinite> Absolutely, this 'kind' is a sort of different type of usage
02[20:43] * Quits: Machiavel (~Murph@Rizon-C8274B3.bflony.east.verizon.net)
[20:43] <@Avinite> in the sense that telling a joke is different than asking a question
[20:43] <@Avinite> These have sort of
[20:43] <@Avinite> different rules surrounding their usage
[20:44] <@Avinite> Like, one of the rules regarding asking questions is that, after asking, you expect the other person to answer
[20:44] <@Avinite> It's a social rule
[20:44] <Mitt> wait,
[20:44] <@Avinite> You might indicate this by raising your voice at the end of a sentence, or...
[20:44] <@Avinite> Yeah, go ahead
[20:44] <Mitt> but can these "rules" be so explicit?
[20:45] <@Avinite> What sort of rules did you have in mind?
[20:45] <Mitt> imean, are we easily conscious of them if asked about them? im not sure about that
[20:45] <@Avinite> Not necessarily, no
[20:45] <Mitt> well like that one you just mentioned
[20:45] <@Avinite> They could easily be subconscious
[20:45] <@Avinite> as long as they're somehow learnt
[20:46] <Pooka> if you are playing the game already, you must know them, even if you cannot immediately state them?
[20:46] <Mitt> subconscious? that is suggesting that we have to KNOW these rules if we are to use them right
[20:47] <@Avinite> I'm sure there are all kinds of rules to telling a joke that comedians know, but we do not, (though we can still use them,)
[20:47] <Pooka> this might be 'use' related again, and relates to Witt's ideas of grammar, surface grammar etc
[20:47] <Mitt> theres something fishy there...isnt the use all there is? like, no intermediaries?
[20:47] <@Avinite> You are familiar with the rule of 3, for instance?
[20:47] <@Avinite> Wait, I'm not so sure this is totally relevant
[20:47] <@Avinite> Let's stop
[20:47] <@Avinite> I meant my example
[20:47] <@Avinite> not the discussion
[20:47] <@Avinite> **
[20:48] <@Avinite> The use is all there is, yeah
[20:48] <@Avinite> but the use takes place in the context of a game
[20:48] <@Avinite> The use is grounded in a sort of social practice
[20:48] <@Avinite> its this social practice that actually allows it to happen
[20:49] <@Avinite> Its the form of life you have to imagine, when imagining the language
[20:49] <@Avinite> to pull it back half an hour
[20:49] <Mitt> what do you mean by social practice? couldnt one say that the use IS the social practice?
[20:50] <@Avinite> Social practice means things like... uh
02[20:50] * Quits: Nicolet (~chatzilla@Rizon-C69F3D18.dk.customer.tdc.net) (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 24.0/20130822154523])
02[20:50] * Quits: litenstein (yes_man@Rizon-C01D33CD.cpe.netcabo.pt)
[20:50] <@Avinite> "We ask questions in order to find things out"
[20:51] <@Avinite> Think of them as
[20:51] <@Avinite> customary behaviours
[20:51] <Pooka> but the social practice is only arrived at via use
[20:51] <@Avinite> When we ask questions, we wait for the other person to respond before walking away"
[20:51] <@Avinite> This is a sort of custom
[20:52] <@Avinite> And its because of all of these customs that we can engage in asking questions and that sort of behaviour
[20:52] <Pooka> the use and social practice are prerequisites of each other from this view?
[20:52] <Mitt> ok, so the crucial point is these "customs"
[20:53] <@Avinite> Hmmm
[20:53] <@Avinite> In what sense is the use a prerequisite of a social practice?
[20:54] <Pooka> well you cannot develop a custom without it being base on use
[20:54] <Pooka> for it must be used to become customary
[20:54] <Mitt> i guess he meant that they are interdependent
[20:54] <Pooka> but use takes place within the context of customs
[20:54] <Pooka> within rules, within games etc
[20:54] <@Avinite> The use is the aim of the game
[20:55] <@Avinite> And the customs are the rules
[20:55] <@Avinite> So in a sense they're interdependent
[20:55] <Pooka> and the game has rules, but the rules are the rules due to use?
[20:55] <@Avinite> You couldn't play Snakes and Ladders without the rules, nor could you play it without having an aim to get to the end
[20:55] <Pooka> you can't play without the rules, but you have to get the rules to start with
[20:55] <@Avinite> Absolutely
[20:55] <@Avinite> the rules and the use evolve symbiotically
[20:55] <Mitt> but the rules are not defined apriori
[20:55] <@Avinite> New language games 'emerge'
[20:56] <Mitt> they are made "as we go along"
[20:56] <Pooka> yep, that's what i'm getting at, rules are not apriori, so develop via use
[20:56] <@Avinite> Absolutely
[20:56] <@Avinite> remember - however language is, it could always be different
[20:56] <Mitt> then how can one play if there are not yet rules?
[20:56] <Lemniscate> Ah, this is the important part
[20:57] <Lemniscate> Remember how Augustine wrote that he had an understanding of ostentation
[20:57] <Lemniscate> ... as it were, "the natural language of all peoples"?
[20:58] <@Avinite> Yeah, the instinctive pretheory
[20:58] <@Avinite> How can we play if there aren't yet rules?
[20:58] <@Avinite> This is interesting
[20:58] <@Avinite> Someone had to ask the first question, I suppose-
[20:58] <@Avinite> and it would have been very unclear as to how to respond
[20:58] <Mitt> thats an hypothesis
[20:58] <Pooka> need something to bootstap into the first language, so you can use it to define and use rules for the other lang games
[20:59] <Mitt> there'd be no "clarity" defined yet
02[20:59] * Quits: luyuping (qwebirc@ED105FC6.FC56B95B.8BAB2FD2.IP) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:59] <Mitt> for what is the criteria defining clarity?
[20:59] <@Avinite> let's just say
[20:59] <Lemniscate> Logical consistency, likely.
[20:59] <@Avinite> It's hard to see how the other person would have known how to respond
[21:00] <Pooka> can you have some sort of life/death binary, then a fed/hungry binary, then a happy sad, then a this makes me happy etc,
[21:00] <@Avinite> But I suppose over time a culture builds up these things? Is it such a problem if we can't quite see why?
[21:00] <Coquillard> a process of refinement involving discipline and punishment, vital needs, etc.
[21:00] <@Avinite> We know it happens, after all
[21:00] <@Avinite> Think about non-euclidean geometry,
[21:00] <Pooka> can you have culture without the language though
[21:00] <@Avinite> the rules for expressing it evolved at the same time as the aims of expression we might have had
[21:01] <@Avinite> Though we could say
[21:01] <@Avinite> this is far too artificial
[21:01] <Mitt> well yeah, the fact that is happens is clear... and the point is not why but how
[21:01] <Mitt> it happens*
[21:01] <Pooka> to imagine the the culture we need to imagine a lang game (it can be pre verbal)
[21:02] <Coquillard> are we including non-verbal/written "mental pictures" as language? the "sign" of a bear approaching, etc.
[21:03] <@Avinite> Um
[21:03] <Pooka> if they are communicated to anther, yes i think
[21:03] <@Avinite> Yes, Pooka a good answer, but the idea of a private internal language will be
[21:03] <@Avinite> a very large issue
[21:03] <Pooka> if it is mental picture inside the head of one person, no, as this runs up against Witt's private lang argument
[21:04] <Coquillard> interesting.
[21:04] <@Avinite> Theres a large skeptical issue here in how we got to any language in the first place
[21:04] <@Avinite> without mental images beforehand but
[21:04] <@Avinite> This really is an issue for another section
[21:05] <Pooka> have we got anything else from this week's reading left to cover?
[21:06] <@Avinite> I don't think so
[21:06] <@Avinite> Unless anyone else has anything to add?
[21:06] <Coquillard> i don't think we've thorougly unpacked everything, but i think further reading might elucidate some of it.
[21:06] <Coquillard> 2 hrs is a good endpoint i think
[21:07] <Pooka> i'd agree on both points there Coqu
03[21:07] * Avinite changes topic to '/lit/ Reading Group for the Philosophical Investigations | Third meeting: Saturday 7st September 9pm GMT (for real, this time) | Reading: Sections 23 - 39'
[21:07] <@Avinite> I think 2 hours is as good a time as any
[21:07] <@Avinite> It's been fun, I'll make a couple of threads over the next week
[21:07] <@Avinite> Does that look like a satisfactory reading?
[21:07] <@Avinite> 23-39?
01[21:07] <Yes> aye
[21:08] <Pooka> really enjoyed today though, thanks for putting so much effort in Avinite, i'm impressed
[21:08] <@Avinite> Ah, thanks very much Pooka, I wasn't really on form today though what with getting the start time muddled and such
03[21:08] * Joins: Hagbard (~Dillinger@Rizon-6FFE59E7.threembb.co.uk)
[21:08] <Mitt> can i ask what time is it right now (GMT)? im confused
[21:08] <@Avinite> I'll see you perhaps at Reading Wittgenstein forums in the future
[21:08] <@Avinite> right now its 8pm GMT
[21:08] <@Avinite> I just call my timezone GMT all year round but really I am in BST at the moment
[21:09] <@Avinite> (where it is 9pm)
[21:09] <Hagbard> Lol that just confused me I thought I was an hour late!
01[21:10] <Yes> but so Avinite, you mean you want it to be at our real hour adjusted to daylight savings, or without the daylight savings
[21:10] <Coquillard> good stuff, guys. see you all on saturday.
[21:11] <@Avinite> Hmm,
[21:11] <@Avinite> for the Brits
02[21:11] * Quits: Coquillard (~Coquillar@Rizon-DC6C0B56.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Po-ta-to, boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew.)
[21:11] <@Avinite> it will be at 10pm
01[21:11] <Yes> ok
[21:11] <@Avinite> BUT this is actually (contra everything I've ever learnt) 9pm GMT
02[21:11] * Quits: Hagbard (~Dillinger@Rizon-6FFE59E7.threembb.co.uk)
[21:11] <@Avinite> Strange, right?
01[21:11] <Yes> yes
[21:12] <Pooka> so we are meeting later next week? 10 for british time, 9gmt
01[21:12] <Yes> thanks for clarifying
[21:12] <@Avinite> Yes, perfect
[21:12] <@Avinite> on Saturday
[21:14] <Mitt> you guise have been here for one hour or two hours so far? cause someone said two hours but didnt you start at 7pm?
02[21:16] * Quits: Pooka (~Pooka@Rizon-E7FBA379.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com) (Remote host closed the connection)
[21:17] <@Avinite> Ah, it was 2 hours
[21:17] <@Avinite> We started at 7pm BST which I mislabelled as GMT
[21:17] <@Avinite> Next week it is really GMT
[21:18] <Mitt> oh, so it was 6pm gmt?
[21:18] <@Avinite> Fraid so, sorry for misunderstanding
[21:18] <@Avinite> I'll post the pastebin somewhere,
[21:19] <@Avinite> And make sure its properly done next week
[21:20] <Mitt> cool. im not sure i'll make it saturday but i'll try
[21:21] <@Avinite> I hope you can - it would be good to see you there
[21:21] <Mitt> oh i'd been looking forward to it but i guess i haven paid attention to the meeting thing...anyway
[21:22] <Mitt> you know ive recently been reading the big typescript and the early cambridge lectures
[21:22] <Mitt> and you see a lot of the PI there
[21:22] <@Avinite> Oh absolutely, the Big Typescript is in many ways a proto-Investigations
[21:22] <@Avinite> A first attempt to write the PI
[21:23] <Mitt> yeah, you see thing in development there. cause the PI is like a final polished but reduced version
[21:23] <Mitt> the thing*
[21:23] <@Avinite> I see the PI coming through a lot in the Remarks
[21:23] <@Avinite> in a very unpolished way and mixed with stuff on mathematics
[21:24] <@Avinite> some of the stuff on grammar of colour in the Remarks is awesome!
[21:24] <Mitt> yeah, all that "middle" period is really interesting
[21:25] <Mitt> indeed, one sees there all the development of the notion of grammar, which is one of the central features of the late work
[21:26] <@Avinite> The notion of grammar is one of my absolute favourite and most useful aspects of W.
[21:28] <Mitt> yeah, it is the ground for understanding the rest of his stuff i think
[21:29] <@Avinite> Absolutely
[21:30] <@Avinite> Right, I need to head off now
[21:30] <@Avinite> It's been a pleasure
[21:30] <@Avinite> See you next week