This seems like a
description
of the limits of self-reflection, but only if going up to someone is not oneself (can we run up to ourselves?
Brett Bourbon - 1996 - Constructing a Replacement for the Soul
This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
528
? requirement contradicts the initial insight that one can speak of a non-psychological 'I'. Wittgenstein shows that picturing understanding as a state is mistaken.
A light can emerge, as it were, from within our language as well. Wittgenstein gives a sketch ofhis sketching highlighted as ifby philosophical search lights emerging from conceptual problems: "We must do away with all explanation, and description alone musttakeitsplace. Andthisdescriptiongetsitslight,thatistosayitspurpose--fromthe philosophicalproblems"(PI? 109). Ifaphilosophicalproblemisdissolved,isthe philosophicallightextinguished,orjustdrownedinagreaterlight? Theinvisibilityofthe ordinary would become visible and force philosophical problems into relative invisibility.
This visibility must be both the light animating the truth of Wittgenstein's thinking from above and a light cast by his sketches back onto the philosophical problems: "Our investigationisthereforeagrammaticalone. Suchaninvestigationshedslightonour problem by clearing misunderstanding away" (PI? 90).
One cannot construct a phenomenological language in which the world is fully present. His philosophical attempt to construct such a language, or earlier to describe what is logically true, partly arose from a picture o f reality as divided between language and our experience. An adequate language would establish a completely transparent relationbetweenthese. Wittgenstein'srejectionofthisdesireconstitutesarecognition
that it is not a failure of language that prevents this adequate description of world or experience. Whenhesaysourordinarylanguageisperfectlyadequateheissuggesting that the drive toward what Derrida calls presence is not a problem of logic or language, but a problem of education. The perspicuous description of our use of language is part of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
529
? an education that remakes our involvement within language as perfectly adequate. This too is impossible, but it is a response to the source o f our disquietude. It is never the presence ofthe world that is the problem, but our presence to the world or to our language or to ourselves:
So how do we explain to someone what 'understanding music' means? By specifying the images, kinesthetic sensations, etc. , experienced by someone who understands? More likely, by drawing attention to his expressive movements. -- Andwereallyoughttoaskwhatfunctionexplanationhashere. Andwhatitmeans to speak of: understanding what it means to understand music. For some would say:tounderstandthatmeans:tounderstandmusicitself. Andinthatcasewe should have to ask 'Well, can someone be taught to understand music? ' for that is
the only sort of teaching that could be called explaining music. (CV70) "[Specifying the images, kinesthetic sensations, etc. " ofmusic would mean to construct a phenomenologicallanguage. Anadequatelanguagewouldhavetoincludenotonlythe music but an ideal and functioning human being 'understanding music'. If we all could understand music differently then how can we speak o f an ideal? Rather, understanding is not a state ofmind but is a description ofsomeone's involvement in a piece ofmusic. One
way o f indicating this involvement might be with "expressive movements", another might be by day-dreaming (a certain glazed look) or imagining the next note or bar or progression. An education into this understanding thus cannot be specified outside of our own recognition o f our own involvement in music. This may include learning a particular set of language games or practices, or it may involve a certain kind of silence. Our
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
530
? educationwillonlybeadequateifwerecognizeitassuch. Sucharecognition,however, entails an activation o f our form o f life as biological and social human beings: "Appreciating music is a manifestation ofthe life ofmankind" (CV70).
Wittgensteindoesnotsaythatheincludespicturesofhimself. Rather Investigations consists ofnumerous mini-Tractati, each marking a world and an 'I' as its limit. Thislimit,however,existsasmuchwithinthepicturingasoutsideofit. The position ofthe T , both Wittgenstein's and our own, is embedded in the landscape ofthe problems and of our forms of life. This 'I' is never the same. The metaphysical limit described in the Tractatus allows an absolute (or close to absolute) identity between Wittgensteinandanyonewhowouldunderstandhim. ThesketchesoftheInvestigations are not only edited and assembled in an album, but sketching is different from viewing sketches, sketching the landscape around Mycenae is different from looking at a picture of that landscape or from seeing it oneself. Much o f the Investigations works at making clear our ability to stand in for each other, to open up a possibility for understanding, for understanding an 'I' as part of an 'our'--through the uniqueness of any particular 'I': a possibility determined by its impossibility.
1In philosophy we often confuse a requirement for thinking x with an effect of thinking x; a requirement of thinking x might be the consequence of thinking y.
2 The poetry is from Charles Tomlinson, "The Order of Saying" in The Flood, p. 12.
3 See The Foundations o f Arithmetic.
4Letters, n, 21.
5 This is exactly the opposite of what I am attempting by enacting an 'I' as an 'our', and thus as an T by education and as a member of a given human 'our. ' One can write oneself into an artificial intelligence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
531
? 13. 1 Physiognomyofthesoul
13 Grammatical Time
In my analysis ofFinnegans Wake I attempt to describe its articulation of a temporal grammar enacted through our shifting semantic commitments within a kind of sexual aesthetic at the limits of sense. In this chapter I will examine a set of responses to the threat of nonsense attending our pictures of time as these are articulated in PhilosophicalInvestigations. Onecouldcharacterizethissetofresponsesasmusical, which in this sense suggests both the mathematical and the poetic articulation o f and playing with time (which is to say, music organizes time in the way building with blocks organizes space). One way we could couch our responses to this threat would be by explicating Wittgenstein's statement that "Understanding a sentence is more akin to understanding a theme in music than one may think" in the face of the Wakean "How to UnderstandtheDeaf,ShouldLadiesleamMusicorMathematics? "(307. 21-2). (Whydo we respond to our doubt and confusion by descriptions of the limits of mind or by constructions o f mind(s)? By the construction o f a woman, for example, in Offenbach's "Tales ofHoffmann" or the construction oftemporal becoming as a feminine principle in Finnegans Wake? )
Much o f poetry can be understood as different versions o f what H. Vendler, in WordsChosenOutofDesire,identifiesinWallaceStevens'poetryas the"transformation of a spatial object into a temporal event. . . The temporal unfolding of the moment
Notes for this chapter begin on page 569
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
532
? becomes in its turn itselfan aesthetic object" (7). Ifwe believe Bertrand Russell that differential equations are the best description oftime (or the change we call time), what valuecanpoetryorliteraturehaveinitsdescriptionoftime? Orifitdoessomethingelse, like express our bafflement and despair at the losses precipitated or made possible by the ontological force of time, what value can poetry have if it cannot grasp the fundamental mathematicalaspectoftime? Whatkindoffuturecanonebuildoutofpoetry? Whatisat stakeinourconceptualizationsandourpoeticizationsoftime? Sincethesearenotthe same thing, what is offered, solved, pictured, enacted by each, by mathematics and poetry, and by the different forms of philosophy that attempt to link these realms?
In this chapter, aesthetics becomes more explicitly a form o f the soul mutating into a mind through the fragmentary poetics, as a form of philosophy, that instantiates, resists, and expresses Stravinsky's insight, as Adorno claims, that "the linguistic and the organic [are] only possible in a state of decomposition" (Quasi urnfantasia, 147). Our making o f the world out o f whatever given or set o f categories one imagines, seems unable to capture our own making (I mean also our own biological making) even if others like ourselves inhabit our made worlds. Self-reflection, however, builds all sorts of meanings derived and dependent on not only who we are but what we are. Much of Heidegger's work involves attempting to think prior to the separation o f these two questions. Such thinking does not mean reducing one to the other, but requires the protection of the claim both questions have on us. Wittgenstein does this in a number of ways, but most importantly he does this through the interpretive, aesthetic pressure his fragments and his metaphors induce in the reader. He sets up aesthetic barriers to protect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
533
? his separation o f grammar (our language use) from phenomena, moibus-strip twisting us back into our practices and our being. 1 In order to pressure grammatical analysis into the aesthetics o f our temporality, I will constructs the limits and interaction between sense and nonsense along one o f the axes Wittgenstein uses to map our form o f life, whose ends are marked by the sentences "Understanding a sentence is more akin to understanding a theme in music than one may think" and "The human body is the best picture o f the human soul". Why does Wittgenstein invoke the musical and visual, appeal to metaphors o f the metaphoric at these limits, as expressions reflecting back toward language? Our misuse of
words pushes us not only into confusion, but into art. How are these aesthetic appeals like his assertion in the Blue Book that "[a]s part of the system of language, one may say, the sentence has life" (5)? What justifies Wittgenstein's attempt to limit our inquiry into the logic determining a form of life by these two curious appeals to art, justifying these limits aesthetically?
The role o f temporality is very complex and often disguised and displaced into grammaticaldescriptionsinPhilosophicalInvestigations. Asageneralquestiontoshape at least the targets of my analysis, I will begin by asking 'How is the problem of time displaced into a problem of language in Investigations? ' In the "Big Transcript" Wittgenstein articulates his abandonment ofa phenomenological language ofthe present moment for a grammar o f time within language:
Language cannot express what belongs to the essence o f the world. Therefore it cannot say that everything flows. Language can only say what we could also imagine differently.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
534
? Thateverythingflowsmustlieinhowlanguagetouchesreality. Orbetter:that everything flows must lie in the nature of language("Philosophy", ? 91).
While language and time are no longer opposed as either incommensurable (as they are in the Tractatus if language is reduced to tautology) or as confused and incomplete (in his later attempts at figuring a phenomenological language), the nature o f time as flux remains the same. In Philosophical Investigations the effect o f understanding language from within language transforms the nature of time. In this passage temporal flux marks the limit or the "nature" o f language. As we have seen, the nature o f the investigation into the nature o f language, in Investigations, is not described as a flowing, but, rather, as a description o f animation, a wandering on paths (language games) and a shifting between paths. The nature oflanguage has changed partly because the conception oftime is now understood from within language. In the Brown Book, Wittgenstein argues that describing time as "flowing" is a disanalogy. His cure fails to address why we make such a mistake, and thus simplifies language, at least 'time language' into nothing but communication, disguising what is at stake in both our relation to time and how human forms of self- reflectionworkthrough(our)temporalawareness. IntheInvestigationstimeisrewritten into four primary sites o f grammatical change (these sites are neither exhaustive nor authoritative in this form, or any form):
1) the actions, changes and transformations within language games (a kind of unconscious time)
2) the confusion about our involvement in the present in which we imagine that we have to "describe phenomena that are hard to get hold of, the present experience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
535
? that slips quickly by, or something of the kind" (PI? 436) (I discussed on aspect of this in the previous chapter).
3) the enactment ofthe possibility ofthe future in our use of 'hope' or 'expectation' and so on as contrasted with the picture of possibility as itself a subjunctive mode shadowing reality (the future as a machine)
4) the enactment ofa kind oftemporality as a grammatical horizon or dynamic limit (as one ofthe forms ofour life) through our shifting between or out of language games (paths).
Iwillnotexamineallofthese. InfactIwillonlytosketcharoughdescriptionofan answer to the following question: How do the aesthetics o f the Investigations describe a
grammar o f time and limit the inquiry into the way we construct our subjectivity within particular grammars?
Can we think of the displacement of time into grammar as an attempt to conceptualize or protect a soul? If Wittgenstein cannot successfully prevent the objectification oftime as a being or ifhe can't answer the attraction ofusing a metaphoric identification o f time with thing-like behavior, then he has not asked the right questions about either our difficulties conceptualizing time nor about what is at stake in the clearly problematic ways in which we confuse mental events, like understanding, with states and substances. Wittgenstein'sdescriptionscannotprotectusfrombecomingthings.
Thus we find ourselves at the limit ofwhatever motivated Wittgenstein to claim that "[t]he human body is the best picture of the human soul", as a picture of being a human thing, and the claim that understanding is more like understanding a musical theme
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
536
? than we think, as a metaphor for our isomorphic involvement in both time and language. . Reaching this limit (between "the human soul" and music [time]) suggests that the problem o f temporality in the Investigations is also a problem o f the aesthetics o f the text.
Is Wittgenstein's claim that "[t]he human body is the best picture o f the human soul" a theological claim? Iltham Dilman successfully argues, I think, that Wittgenstein's use o f 'soul' is "not a hypothesis that human beings have souls and that a human being's soul is not something he possesses -in the way he may possess a liver" (191). He cites especially Wittgenstein's remark "My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a soul. I am not o f the opinion that he has a soul" (PI p. 178). To have an opinion is to believe something that one could possibly doubt (T thought you had a soul, but now I see I was
wrong'). Wittgenstein uses soul to suggest that we recognize human beings from within our commonality as human beings. I suggested earlier that this means that we see each other as examples of each other, and thus we as human beings (even in our evil) express this species being in our particularity. We approach animals as examples of life in a similar
way. Thesoul,forWittgenstein,therefore,isamarkandexpressionofthesame distinction between the animate and inanimate that describes Aquinas' description o f the soul earlier from within our practices: "Our attitude to what is alive and to what is dead is not the same" (PI ? 284). Dilman, however, also argues that the grammar o f our (human) use o f 'soul' "makes sense only in the framework of certain moral values and that a spiritual life is one that bears a relation to these values" (191). While he argues that
Wittgenstein in his early work thought about ethics as spiritual in this way he does not connect this spiritual sense of the soul with his initial description of the soul as our human
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
537
? frameofreferencewithinwhichweappeartoeachotherashuman. IDsanalysisofthe grammar o f the soul is limited and does not take in Aquinas' description o f the soul, for example, which attempts to make exactly this kind o f link between both uses o f the 'soul'.
Without its theological backing is the use o f soul in Wittgenstein a metaphor, either living or dead? To say I treat you as if you have a soul is to describe my stance toward you as within the same form of life. The claim another human form has on me to be treated as a human body is the manifestation o f a soul, the manifestation o f my particularityasanexpressionofourcommonhumanformoflife. Similarly,the physiognomy of the word claims my attention (as does a musical theme) and demands that I orient myself to it either as sensible, in which case I enter into a language game in which it makes sense as what it is, or I reject it as senseless, as not of a form I can recognize. Although the relation between language games and forms of life is complicated (language games express forms o f life but it is not clear if a different language games always implies different forms of life; similarly both language games and forms of life include practices and actions and so on), such an exclusion sets up the possibility that this word or musical
theme will be rejected as part of my form of life entirely, that is, rejected as not human. (This is the danger Finnegans Wake courts). This is what I earlier called an ontological demand, a theological crisis, described in The Waste Land, signaling an anxiety about our inclusion in or exclusion from the world (a crisis about our stance toward the world).
Wittgenstein uses 'physiognomy' both to describe meaning (PI? 568) and to describe a temptation to say that words have "different characters in different contexts" and yet they each also have "one character. . . a single physiognomy. It looks at us" (PI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
538
? p. 181). The stable shape of a word appearing as a word does not, however, function separately from the language game in which it functions: "[How do the meanings of the individual words make up the sense o f the sentence 'I still haven't seen him yet'? ] The sentence is composed o f words and that is enough"(PI p. 181). This shape o f words seems toabsorbmeaningaspartofitsform. Thistakingupofmeaning,however,isa consequence ofour stance toward and use ofwords:
The familiar physiognomy of a word, the feeling that it has taken up its meaning into itself that it is an actual likeness of its meaning--there could be human beings to whom all this was alien. (They would not have an attachment to their words. )-- And how are these feelings manifested among us? --By the way we choose and value words. (PI p. 218)
How could these human beings use language or mean anything? If "meaning is a physiognomy," the failure to take meaning into the physiognomy of words would mean, if words were still to function as part of a language, that the physiognomy would have to be attached in something else, maybe to the sentence or to the sound or tones or to facial expressions accompanying speaking (in which case their written language would have to include marks correlated with these expressions).
In the assumption that words have a single physiognomy, that they look at us, Wittgenstein counters "But a face in a painting looks at us too" (PI p. 181). A painted face looks like a face because we can recognize it as a face (people have faces): "The arrow points only in the application that a living being makes o f it" (PI? 454).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
539
? We want to say: "When we mean something, it's like going up to someone, it's not having a dead picture (of any kind). " We go up to the thing we mean.
"When one thinks something, it is oneselfthinking"; so one is oneselfin motion. One is rushing ahead and so cannot also observe oneself rushing ahead. Indeed
not
Yes: meaning something is like going up to someone. ((PI? ? 455, 456, 457) Ourpicturesofourlanguageuseareboundupinmetaphors. Thesemetaphors,asis explicit in this case, are the means by which we allegorize ourselves into our language. Thinking or speaking describes a movement that changes one's relation to the world, in a way like going up to a person does. If I go up to you I instigate a relationship in which everything means something to you and me, even if I do or say nothing else ("going up to someone" means to enter into that space within which attention is demanded, although the limitsofthisspacevaryfrompersontopersonandculturetoculture). Howisthinking like "rushing ahead"?
This seems like a description of the limits of self-reflection, but only if going up to someone is not oneself (can we run up to ourselves? ). In ascribing a physiognomy to words we allegorize them as persons, where their meaning is like their mind.
13. 2 Understanding, or Not, How Not to Go On
The clearest invocation ofthe possibility ofthe future as an essence ofour form of lifeintheInvestigationsoccursinWittgenstein'sdiscussionofhope: "Onecanimaginean animal angry, frightened, unhappy, happy, startled. But hopeful? And why not? " (PI p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
540
? 174). How are the workings of "the phenomena of hopes" (as one kind of "Meaning") related to the grammar ofunderstanding entered into through Wittgenstein's description of "how we go on", in a mathematical series, for example, or in reading Finnegans Wake? The collapse and slippage between these two kinds o f meaning determine the limits o f the problem of "meaning" in both the Investigations and the Wake. In this, these texts come up against Melville's short story "Bartleby. " The story describes the frustration and attraction of a narrator who, as a lawyer, has hired Bartleby as a scrivener. Bartleby, however, soon begins a slow renunciation o f the claims and authority human beings (or society) have on him by reducing his own will to nothing more than a refusal to do anything. Bartleby slowly dies. How could Joyce and Wittgenstein answer or respond to the rejection of any possiblejustification of life, understanding, communication, community, or hope expressed by Bartleby? Bartleby's refusal to reply to all requests put on him, to all interchange beyond his "I'd prefer not to" leaves him a cipher, part o f a code lost to language because it (I mean "he") is lost to all human community, existing at the limit of language, except for his, therefore curious responses (why respond at all? ). He
has lost any future. We inhabit the possibility of a future as the ground of our being, signaled by our hoping, but embodied in our language and thus susceptible to denial.
Bartleby's refusal o f meaning answers a child's asking "What should (or can) I do now? " : heanswerswithhisownacceptanceofhisboredom. Whyisitorhowcoulditevenbe possible for a child to ask such a question? (What is signaled by the difficulty o f knowing whether to ask "why" or "how" here? ). If we have forgotten the child's question what have we replaced it with? Are our everyday practices enough like those o f animals to say
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
541
? that this question is no longer relevant in the way it is not for them? How (and why) does the justification Bartleby fails to find underlie our uses o f language? Bartleby has reduced himselfj in a kind o f devolving exhaustion, to a single intention attached to a single desire: to refuse through a complete disengagement from all external, relative to his single intention, demands and intentions. This intention is circular, a continual negation o f the future and therefore an assertion o f a presentness, which does not even include any desire (except his resistance). Without a future or a future directed set o f desires Bartleby has erased hope from his world. He has diminished himselfto the edge of humanity. He remains human primarily through the exercise of his will to resist the demands or appeals directed toward him. This is a way of again asking what is the theological dimensions of
Wittgenstein's use o f the soul in Philosophical Investigations?
I f the moment seems to describe human consciousness, the structure o f the future
as a possibility seems to be described by a machine. Wittgenstein analyzes the figuration ofthe future as a machine:
The machine as symbolizing its action: the action o f a machine--I might say at first--seems to be there in it from the start. What does that mean? --If we know the machine, everything else, that is its movement, seems to be already completely determined. (PI? 193)
In this the possibility o f a movement seems determined by the structure o f the machine. The parts could o f course fail, but "in many cases we don't think o f that at all. We use a machine, or the drawing of a machine, to symbolize a particular action of the machine. " The machine symbolizes its own action, and thus it embodies as the aspect of its structure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
542
? a kind of self-reflection in which its future is determined as a function of what it is. In this itsfunctioningfollowsanidealizedpathalreadytranscendentwithinitsdesign. Amachine seems to generate time through its determined changes in state, the unrolling of a pattern determined by its structure (or seemingly what in the Tractatus Wittgenstein calls, with some ambiguity as Ramsey points out, "the form o f representation [which] is the possibility that the things are so combined with one another as are the elements o f the picture" (2. 1511). Machine time can be described by a diagram o f the machine itself,
where its future actions, its description o f its own changes by those changes, is derived from "the movement of its parts from it [the diagram] (Just as we can give someone a number by telling him that it is the twenty-fifth in the series 1, 4, 9, 16. . . . ). " Such a series , a time-line ofbefore and afters, and our translation into such a machine would translate McTaggert's A-series into a B-series, the existential now into an objectified history, the formula o f dynamism Adams uses to figure himself within a Godless universe.
Wittgenstein diagnoses the mistake in this picturing o f the machine's future movements as if these movements were objects "already lying in a drawer and which we then take out. " These future movements are the way we configure the future for the machine. If faced with an actual machine we no longer assume its parts will not fail. Thus we can see the machine under two different aspects: the putative movements in (1) the machine-as-symbol which functions "far more determinably than in (2) the actual machine. " Thepredeterminedmovementsinthemodelofthemachinesymbolizingitself might seem to be already present in the symbol itself (PI? 193). The motion o f the machine, the movement describing time, seems condensed into the design of the machine
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
? made manifest in the machine itself as if the machine were a drawing o f itself at all possible moments.
Wittgenstein goes on to investigate this seeming presentness o f the future in the machine as symbol: "When does one have the thought: the possible movements o f a machine are already there in it in some mysterious sense? -- Well when one is doing philosophy" (PI? 194). Putting philosophical pressure on our descriptions of machines separates the concept of the possibility of movement from our actual usage of the "phrase 'possibility of movement' when we are talking about a given machine". We imagine because of the defined character of the parts and actions of a machine that the possibility of its movement is somehow part of it, "like a shadow of the movement itself. "2 This possibility, this shadow, we imagine attached to that which is (or can) move; we imagine an entire world constructed out of possibility and tangent to every actual movement and change. Aheadofit? alongsideit?
Wittgenstein asks how we use the phrase "possibility of movement when we are talking about a given machine? " An answer:
We say "Experience will shew whether this gives the pin this possibility of movement", but we do not say "Experience will shew whether this is the possibility ofthis movement": 'so it is not an empirical fact that this possibility is the possibility o f precisely this movement'. (PI? 194)
If we say Adams wants to formalize himselfj so that he describes a kind of logical engine, does one ask o f him "Will experience show whether this formula (or any description) is a formuladescribingbeingasaformula? "Apossibilitydoesnotexistwithintheworld. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
544
? is not an intentionality ofgears and wheels, but a figuration ofbeing human as an effect of a being described by the mechanisms ofthe world (made visible for Adams in the laws of physics). Human beings become fictions ofthe world, fictions which we can best interpret through, at least for Adams, a kind of metaphorized science.
What happens when we separate "the possibility o f movement" from a particular usage and hypostatize it as somehow present in the machine, finding the future somehow present in the present? Would Wittgenstein's therapy dissolve Adams' translation of himself into a machine (dynamo) or formula, his analogizing himself as a possibility made manifest through the workings of nature? If one becomes a formula one's future is determined, present in the formula itself. At the very least this is a misunderstanding of thenatureoftheuseofmathematicsinphysics. Thisusageisimmenselycomplicated. Mathematical functions can serve as representations, interpretations, measurements, descriptive metaphor and so on. Does this mean that mathematics functions as a language? How could a mathematical syntax correlated with data function like a full blownlanguage? Couldsyntaxembodyafuture? AnaspectofAdams'misunderstanding, however, exposes a deep problem: what is the relation between description and metaphor? A more fundamental version of this question is what is the relationship between
algorithms and metaphors? In this question there lies another book (fully present? ). But this question points at the nature of the mistake Wittgenstein is investigating. The confusion about the future, as if it were present in the present, arises whenever we imagine that the meaning or future sense of something lies in a picture of it, in a symbol, in the thing-itself when we are not using it but when it serves to stand for itself. Their are two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
545
? confusions here. The first confusion follows from the extraction o f signs and objects from their ordinary use into some meta-description. In the second confusion, the process of symbolization makes visible the future in such a way that it gets attached to any meaningful unit within this process as ifpart ofthe physiognomy ofthis unit. Things can symbolize themselves. What Wittgenstein is exposing here is the grammatical structure of the future, and the temptations for distortion that attend our functioning within symbol systems:
"But I don't mean that what I do now (in grasping a sense) determines the future use causally and as a matter o f experience, but that in a queer way, the use itself is in some sense present. " But of course it is, 'in some queer sense'! Really the only thing wrong with what you say is the expression "in a queer way". The rest is all right; and the sentence only seems queer when one imagines a different language game for it from the one in which we actually use it. (PI? I95)
The sense o f the future being present in a word or in the 'now' is the result o f how these words or any 'now' emerges and functions within a grammar which describes the future within its symbolic processes. Because this symbolic structure can seem to collapse into a word it seems to excavate within a word a possibility for meaning which is at the same time a possibility for the future. This future, however, is not present in the word in any real sense. It is rather a part of our grammar. Because words and the 'now' function within language (or a symbolic grammar) they can symbolize themselves (as can a machine). Thisself-symbolizationextractsthewordorthe'now'fromitsgrammar. At this point the future (or meaning) seems "in some sense present" in a "queer way. " We
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
546
? have brought the word or the 'now' to the surface without its grammar, and thus the future use seems present in the word.
When we attempt to describe our experience as if this experience were not embedded in language games, as if we grasped the future first before our use of the word 'future' in a particular language game, our experience seems odd (Cf. Edward's failure to lose himself when he loses his wife). For Wittgenstein this oddness is an effect o f a mistake. Adams, however, translates himself into machine metaphors because o f a failure of moral language (of the sort MacIntyre describes in After Virtue), which makes any morality incoherent. This incoherence he understands as an effect of the collapse of an ontology (theology) in which a moral stance is binding because it is embedded in a set of ontological commitments. Adams' asks, in effect, can we make moral sense in any version of our language? One could also ask what kind of moral pressure do science and technology place on the coherence of our ordinary language? (This question is one result of my inquiry).
Earlier I presented a scene describing one way o f recognizing the force o f this question. I wrote, "As in the machine symbolism of Yeats the symbols of identity constituting 'What The Thunder Said', the words we understand as something we can say in a world in which we might find ourselves, if not now, someday or yesterday, offer themselves as containers for our minds, and in this offer o f our translation into the structure of a thing we project our essential self, as if that is what our life means to us. The logic o f identity, o f equivalence, not the copula, nor the 'is' o f existence, articulates not only what the poetry means but what we mean by ourselves. The fragments of The Waste
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
547
? Land are dying (or are dead) in the way that we are dead or dying. This is the crucial analogy. The temptation toward a theory o f identity as a theory o f meaning builds minds, as we saw in Jakobson, because it is the limit o f death that constructs our lives as containers (with holes, as sieves ofvarious lands, shapes, and sizes). To enter language through identity is as if to enter as a container. "
And Wittgenstein might respond: "Every sign by itself seems dead. What gives it life? -- In use it is alive. Is life breathed into it there? --Or is the use its life? " (PI? 432). We have two kinds ofuse here. Does use give signs a kind oflife, as ifthe words are puppets or wind-up toys; or are they hammers and saws, with no hidden strings or engines. Thedifferenceseemstobeoneofhowmediatedourrelationistothesewords. Do we give them their power to then go and do their work, or is their energy and use always intimately ours. But Eliot or Joyce might also asks 'Do all uses offer the same life? ' Shouldn't we also be debating about kinds o f life? This would be to revisit the history and conceptual logic ofthe development ofthe soul from distinct eschatological and psychological souls, what Arbman called, in his study o f the Vedic soul, the free soul and the body-soul, into a unified soul under the semantic rubric of the free soul. J.
Breamer argues that a similar conceptual unification took place in Greece, where Homer's description o f human beings under the aspects o f many souls, the body-soul (thymos, noos, and menos) and the free soul (psyche) is later unified in the Psyche. Aristotle in his history of the soul in Book I ofDe Anima organizes the development of a united soul around the principle of movement (kinesis) and of perception (disthesis). Such principles define one set o f criteria for animation. Aristotle transforms these criteria into the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
548
? characterization o f the soul as "the first entelecheia o f a natural body that potentially has life" (De anima. 11. 412a). ( I do not explicate what this means here; I think, however, Heidegger's animation o f the thing is a development o f this definition o f the soul as a descriptionoftheworld. Itrytoshowthisinmyanalysisof"DasDing"; partofwhatI need here is the idea that we enter into language through the figure of its animation).
"In use it [a sign] is alive" describes our use o f words as if tools, where the hatchet vanishes into an extension o f our arm. Or as if I found an order floating my way and I accept it as directed to me. I accept it into me; this is my act o f will and understanding. The order is an algorithm and once understood takes over my body (or mind) and I act. So someone might say "There is a gulfbetween an order and its execution. It has to filled by the act of understanding. " Can we refuse the order if we understand it? Wittgenstein does not invoke the will, but points to the will as a negative, as what would answer his question: If I give an order to someone--"How does he know at all what use he is to makeofthesignsIgivehim,whatevertheyare? "(PI? 433). TheWillfillsthisrole,butof course to offer the will as an answer here is simply to offer another black box. Is this different from becoming alive?
If it is asked: "How do sentences manage to represent? "--the answer might be: "Don't you know? You certainly see it, when you use them. " For nothing is concealed.
How do sentences do it? --Don't you know? For nothing is hidden.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
549
? But given this answer: "But you know how sentences do it, for nothing is concealed" one would like to retort "Yes, but it all goes by so quick, and I should like to see it as it were laid open to view. "(PI? 435)
Wittgenstein resists the view that language "goes by so quick. " This sense of effervescence expresses a dissatisfaction with ordinary language, which can seem "too crude" to capture phenomena that, as Augustine writes, "easily elude us, and, in their coming to be and passing away, produce those others as an average effect". What eludes us when we use language? Nothing. Then why do we insist that something eludes us? If we ask "how do sentences do it?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
528
? requirement contradicts the initial insight that one can speak of a non-psychological 'I'. Wittgenstein shows that picturing understanding as a state is mistaken.
A light can emerge, as it were, from within our language as well. Wittgenstein gives a sketch ofhis sketching highlighted as ifby philosophical search lights emerging from conceptual problems: "We must do away with all explanation, and description alone musttakeitsplace. Andthisdescriptiongetsitslight,thatistosayitspurpose--fromthe philosophicalproblems"(PI? 109). Ifaphilosophicalproblemisdissolved,isthe philosophicallightextinguished,orjustdrownedinagreaterlight? Theinvisibilityofthe ordinary would become visible and force philosophical problems into relative invisibility.
This visibility must be both the light animating the truth of Wittgenstein's thinking from above and a light cast by his sketches back onto the philosophical problems: "Our investigationisthereforeagrammaticalone. Suchaninvestigationshedslightonour problem by clearing misunderstanding away" (PI? 90).
One cannot construct a phenomenological language in which the world is fully present. His philosophical attempt to construct such a language, or earlier to describe what is logically true, partly arose from a picture o f reality as divided between language and our experience. An adequate language would establish a completely transparent relationbetweenthese. Wittgenstein'srejectionofthisdesireconstitutesarecognition
that it is not a failure of language that prevents this adequate description of world or experience. Whenhesaysourordinarylanguageisperfectlyadequateheissuggesting that the drive toward what Derrida calls presence is not a problem of logic or language, but a problem of education. The perspicuous description of our use of language is part of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
529
? an education that remakes our involvement within language as perfectly adequate. This too is impossible, but it is a response to the source o f our disquietude. It is never the presence ofthe world that is the problem, but our presence to the world or to our language or to ourselves:
So how do we explain to someone what 'understanding music' means? By specifying the images, kinesthetic sensations, etc. , experienced by someone who understands? More likely, by drawing attention to his expressive movements. -- Andwereallyoughttoaskwhatfunctionexplanationhashere. Andwhatitmeans to speak of: understanding what it means to understand music. For some would say:tounderstandthatmeans:tounderstandmusicitself. Andinthatcasewe should have to ask 'Well, can someone be taught to understand music? ' for that is
the only sort of teaching that could be called explaining music. (CV70) "[Specifying the images, kinesthetic sensations, etc. " ofmusic would mean to construct a phenomenologicallanguage. Anadequatelanguagewouldhavetoincludenotonlythe music but an ideal and functioning human being 'understanding music'. If we all could understand music differently then how can we speak o f an ideal? Rather, understanding is not a state ofmind but is a description ofsomeone's involvement in a piece ofmusic. One
way o f indicating this involvement might be with "expressive movements", another might be by day-dreaming (a certain glazed look) or imagining the next note or bar or progression. An education into this understanding thus cannot be specified outside of our own recognition o f our own involvement in music. This may include learning a particular set of language games or practices, or it may involve a certain kind of silence. Our
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
530
? educationwillonlybeadequateifwerecognizeitassuch. Sucharecognition,however, entails an activation o f our form o f life as biological and social human beings: "Appreciating music is a manifestation ofthe life ofmankind" (CV70).
Wittgensteindoesnotsaythatheincludespicturesofhimself. Rather Investigations consists ofnumerous mini-Tractati, each marking a world and an 'I' as its limit. Thislimit,however,existsasmuchwithinthepicturingasoutsideofit. The position ofthe T , both Wittgenstein's and our own, is embedded in the landscape ofthe problems and of our forms of life. This 'I' is never the same. The metaphysical limit described in the Tractatus allows an absolute (or close to absolute) identity between Wittgensteinandanyonewhowouldunderstandhim. ThesketchesoftheInvestigations are not only edited and assembled in an album, but sketching is different from viewing sketches, sketching the landscape around Mycenae is different from looking at a picture of that landscape or from seeing it oneself. Much o f the Investigations works at making clear our ability to stand in for each other, to open up a possibility for understanding, for understanding an 'I' as part of an 'our'--through the uniqueness of any particular 'I': a possibility determined by its impossibility.
1In philosophy we often confuse a requirement for thinking x with an effect of thinking x; a requirement of thinking x might be the consequence of thinking y.
2 The poetry is from Charles Tomlinson, "The Order of Saying" in The Flood, p. 12.
3 See The Foundations o f Arithmetic.
4Letters, n, 21.
5 This is exactly the opposite of what I am attempting by enacting an 'I' as an 'our', and thus as an T by education and as a member of a given human 'our. ' One can write oneself into an artificial intelligence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
531
? 13. 1 Physiognomyofthesoul
13 Grammatical Time
In my analysis ofFinnegans Wake I attempt to describe its articulation of a temporal grammar enacted through our shifting semantic commitments within a kind of sexual aesthetic at the limits of sense. In this chapter I will examine a set of responses to the threat of nonsense attending our pictures of time as these are articulated in PhilosophicalInvestigations. Onecouldcharacterizethissetofresponsesasmusical, which in this sense suggests both the mathematical and the poetic articulation o f and playing with time (which is to say, music organizes time in the way building with blocks organizes space). One way we could couch our responses to this threat would be by explicating Wittgenstein's statement that "Understanding a sentence is more akin to understanding a theme in music than one may think" in the face of the Wakean "How to UnderstandtheDeaf,ShouldLadiesleamMusicorMathematics? "(307. 21-2). (Whydo we respond to our doubt and confusion by descriptions of the limits of mind or by constructions o f mind(s)? By the construction o f a woman, for example, in Offenbach's "Tales ofHoffmann" or the construction oftemporal becoming as a feminine principle in Finnegans Wake? )
Much o f poetry can be understood as different versions o f what H. Vendler, in WordsChosenOutofDesire,identifiesinWallaceStevens'poetryas the"transformation of a spatial object into a temporal event. . . The temporal unfolding of the moment
Notes for this chapter begin on page 569
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
532
? becomes in its turn itselfan aesthetic object" (7). Ifwe believe Bertrand Russell that differential equations are the best description oftime (or the change we call time), what valuecanpoetryorliteraturehaveinitsdescriptionoftime? Orifitdoessomethingelse, like express our bafflement and despair at the losses precipitated or made possible by the ontological force of time, what value can poetry have if it cannot grasp the fundamental mathematicalaspectoftime? Whatkindoffuturecanonebuildoutofpoetry? Whatisat stakeinourconceptualizationsandourpoeticizationsoftime? Sincethesearenotthe same thing, what is offered, solved, pictured, enacted by each, by mathematics and poetry, and by the different forms of philosophy that attempt to link these realms?
In this chapter, aesthetics becomes more explicitly a form o f the soul mutating into a mind through the fragmentary poetics, as a form of philosophy, that instantiates, resists, and expresses Stravinsky's insight, as Adorno claims, that "the linguistic and the organic [are] only possible in a state of decomposition" (Quasi urnfantasia, 147). Our making o f the world out o f whatever given or set o f categories one imagines, seems unable to capture our own making (I mean also our own biological making) even if others like ourselves inhabit our made worlds. Self-reflection, however, builds all sorts of meanings derived and dependent on not only who we are but what we are. Much of Heidegger's work involves attempting to think prior to the separation o f these two questions. Such thinking does not mean reducing one to the other, but requires the protection of the claim both questions have on us. Wittgenstein does this in a number of ways, but most importantly he does this through the interpretive, aesthetic pressure his fragments and his metaphors induce in the reader. He sets up aesthetic barriers to protect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
533
? his separation o f grammar (our language use) from phenomena, moibus-strip twisting us back into our practices and our being. 1 In order to pressure grammatical analysis into the aesthetics o f our temporality, I will constructs the limits and interaction between sense and nonsense along one o f the axes Wittgenstein uses to map our form o f life, whose ends are marked by the sentences "Understanding a sentence is more akin to understanding a theme in music than one may think" and "The human body is the best picture o f the human soul". Why does Wittgenstein invoke the musical and visual, appeal to metaphors o f the metaphoric at these limits, as expressions reflecting back toward language? Our misuse of
words pushes us not only into confusion, but into art. How are these aesthetic appeals like his assertion in the Blue Book that "[a]s part of the system of language, one may say, the sentence has life" (5)? What justifies Wittgenstein's attempt to limit our inquiry into the logic determining a form of life by these two curious appeals to art, justifying these limits aesthetically?
The role o f temporality is very complex and often disguised and displaced into grammaticaldescriptionsinPhilosophicalInvestigations. Asageneralquestiontoshape at least the targets of my analysis, I will begin by asking 'How is the problem of time displaced into a problem of language in Investigations? ' In the "Big Transcript" Wittgenstein articulates his abandonment ofa phenomenological language ofthe present moment for a grammar o f time within language:
Language cannot express what belongs to the essence o f the world. Therefore it cannot say that everything flows. Language can only say what we could also imagine differently.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
534
? Thateverythingflowsmustlieinhowlanguagetouchesreality. Orbetter:that everything flows must lie in the nature of language("Philosophy", ? 91).
While language and time are no longer opposed as either incommensurable (as they are in the Tractatus if language is reduced to tautology) or as confused and incomplete (in his later attempts at figuring a phenomenological language), the nature o f time as flux remains the same. In Philosophical Investigations the effect o f understanding language from within language transforms the nature of time. In this passage temporal flux marks the limit or the "nature" o f language. As we have seen, the nature o f the investigation into the nature o f language, in Investigations, is not described as a flowing, but, rather, as a description o f animation, a wandering on paths (language games) and a shifting between paths. The nature oflanguage has changed partly because the conception oftime is now understood from within language. In the Brown Book, Wittgenstein argues that describing time as "flowing" is a disanalogy. His cure fails to address why we make such a mistake, and thus simplifies language, at least 'time language' into nothing but communication, disguising what is at stake in both our relation to time and how human forms of self- reflectionworkthrough(our)temporalawareness. IntheInvestigationstimeisrewritten into four primary sites o f grammatical change (these sites are neither exhaustive nor authoritative in this form, or any form):
1) the actions, changes and transformations within language games (a kind of unconscious time)
2) the confusion about our involvement in the present in which we imagine that we have to "describe phenomena that are hard to get hold of, the present experience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
535
? that slips quickly by, or something of the kind" (PI? 436) (I discussed on aspect of this in the previous chapter).
3) the enactment ofthe possibility ofthe future in our use of 'hope' or 'expectation' and so on as contrasted with the picture of possibility as itself a subjunctive mode shadowing reality (the future as a machine)
4) the enactment ofa kind oftemporality as a grammatical horizon or dynamic limit (as one ofthe forms ofour life) through our shifting between or out of language games (paths).
Iwillnotexamineallofthese. InfactIwillonlytosketcharoughdescriptionofan answer to the following question: How do the aesthetics o f the Investigations describe a
grammar o f time and limit the inquiry into the way we construct our subjectivity within particular grammars?
Can we think of the displacement of time into grammar as an attempt to conceptualize or protect a soul? If Wittgenstein cannot successfully prevent the objectification oftime as a being or ifhe can't answer the attraction ofusing a metaphoric identification o f time with thing-like behavior, then he has not asked the right questions about either our difficulties conceptualizing time nor about what is at stake in the clearly problematic ways in which we confuse mental events, like understanding, with states and substances. Wittgenstein'sdescriptionscannotprotectusfrombecomingthings.
Thus we find ourselves at the limit ofwhatever motivated Wittgenstein to claim that "[t]he human body is the best picture of the human soul", as a picture of being a human thing, and the claim that understanding is more like understanding a musical theme
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
536
? than we think, as a metaphor for our isomorphic involvement in both time and language. . Reaching this limit (between "the human soul" and music [time]) suggests that the problem o f temporality in the Investigations is also a problem o f the aesthetics o f the text.
Is Wittgenstein's claim that "[t]he human body is the best picture o f the human soul" a theological claim? Iltham Dilman successfully argues, I think, that Wittgenstein's use o f 'soul' is "not a hypothesis that human beings have souls and that a human being's soul is not something he possesses -in the way he may possess a liver" (191). He cites especially Wittgenstein's remark "My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a soul. I am not o f the opinion that he has a soul" (PI p. 178). To have an opinion is to believe something that one could possibly doubt (T thought you had a soul, but now I see I was
wrong'). Wittgenstein uses soul to suggest that we recognize human beings from within our commonality as human beings. I suggested earlier that this means that we see each other as examples of each other, and thus we as human beings (even in our evil) express this species being in our particularity. We approach animals as examples of life in a similar
way. Thesoul,forWittgenstein,therefore,isamarkandexpressionofthesame distinction between the animate and inanimate that describes Aquinas' description o f the soul earlier from within our practices: "Our attitude to what is alive and to what is dead is not the same" (PI ? 284). Dilman, however, also argues that the grammar o f our (human) use o f 'soul' "makes sense only in the framework of certain moral values and that a spiritual life is one that bears a relation to these values" (191). While he argues that
Wittgenstein in his early work thought about ethics as spiritual in this way he does not connect this spiritual sense of the soul with his initial description of the soul as our human
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
537
? frameofreferencewithinwhichweappeartoeachotherashuman. IDsanalysisofthe grammar o f the soul is limited and does not take in Aquinas' description o f the soul, for example, which attempts to make exactly this kind o f link between both uses o f the 'soul'.
Without its theological backing is the use o f soul in Wittgenstein a metaphor, either living or dead? To say I treat you as if you have a soul is to describe my stance toward you as within the same form of life. The claim another human form has on me to be treated as a human body is the manifestation o f a soul, the manifestation o f my particularityasanexpressionofourcommonhumanformoflife. Similarly,the physiognomy of the word claims my attention (as does a musical theme) and demands that I orient myself to it either as sensible, in which case I enter into a language game in which it makes sense as what it is, or I reject it as senseless, as not of a form I can recognize. Although the relation between language games and forms of life is complicated (language games express forms o f life but it is not clear if a different language games always implies different forms of life; similarly both language games and forms of life include practices and actions and so on), such an exclusion sets up the possibility that this word or musical
theme will be rejected as part of my form of life entirely, that is, rejected as not human. (This is the danger Finnegans Wake courts). This is what I earlier called an ontological demand, a theological crisis, described in The Waste Land, signaling an anxiety about our inclusion in or exclusion from the world (a crisis about our stance toward the world).
Wittgenstein uses 'physiognomy' both to describe meaning (PI? 568) and to describe a temptation to say that words have "different characters in different contexts" and yet they each also have "one character. . . a single physiognomy. It looks at us" (PI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
538
? p. 181). The stable shape of a word appearing as a word does not, however, function separately from the language game in which it functions: "[How do the meanings of the individual words make up the sense o f the sentence 'I still haven't seen him yet'? ] The sentence is composed o f words and that is enough"(PI p. 181). This shape o f words seems toabsorbmeaningaspartofitsform. Thistakingupofmeaning,however,isa consequence ofour stance toward and use ofwords:
The familiar physiognomy of a word, the feeling that it has taken up its meaning into itself that it is an actual likeness of its meaning--there could be human beings to whom all this was alien. (They would not have an attachment to their words. )-- And how are these feelings manifested among us? --By the way we choose and value words. (PI p. 218)
How could these human beings use language or mean anything? If "meaning is a physiognomy," the failure to take meaning into the physiognomy of words would mean, if words were still to function as part of a language, that the physiognomy would have to be attached in something else, maybe to the sentence or to the sound or tones or to facial expressions accompanying speaking (in which case their written language would have to include marks correlated with these expressions).
In the assumption that words have a single physiognomy, that they look at us, Wittgenstein counters "But a face in a painting looks at us too" (PI p. 181). A painted face looks like a face because we can recognize it as a face (people have faces): "The arrow points only in the application that a living being makes o f it" (PI? 454).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
539
? We want to say: "When we mean something, it's like going up to someone, it's not having a dead picture (of any kind). " We go up to the thing we mean.
"When one thinks something, it is oneselfthinking"; so one is oneselfin motion. One is rushing ahead and so cannot also observe oneself rushing ahead. Indeed
not
Yes: meaning something is like going up to someone. ((PI? ? 455, 456, 457) Ourpicturesofourlanguageuseareboundupinmetaphors. Thesemetaphors,asis explicit in this case, are the means by which we allegorize ourselves into our language. Thinking or speaking describes a movement that changes one's relation to the world, in a way like going up to a person does. If I go up to you I instigate a relationship in which everything means something to you and me, even if I do or say nothing else ("going up to someone" means to enter into that space within which attention is demanded, although the limitsofthisspacevaryfrompersontopersonandculturetoculture). Howisthinking like "rushing ahead"?
This seems like a description of the limits of self-reflection, but only if going up to someone is not oneself (can we run up to ourselves? ). In ascribing a physiognomy to words we allegorize them as persons, where their meaning is like their mind.
13. 2 Understanding, or Not, How Not to Go On
The clearest invocation ofthe possibility ofthe future as an essence ofour form of lifeintheInvestigationsoccursinWittgenstein'sdiscussionofhope: "Onecanimaginean animal angry, frightened, unhappy, happy, startled. But hopeful? And why not? " (PI p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
540
? 174). How are the workings of "the phenomena of hopes" (as one kind of "Meaning") related to the grammar ofunderstanding entered into through Wittgenstein's description of "how we go on", in a mathematical series, for example, or in reading Finnegans Wake? The collapse and slippage between these two kinds o f meaning determine the limits o f the problem of "meaning" in both the Investigations and the Wake. In this, these texts come up against Melville's short story "Bartleby. " The story describes the frustration and attraction of a narrator who, as a lawyer, has hired Bartleby as a scrivener. Bartleby, however, soon begins a slow renunciation o f the claims and authority human beings (or society) have on him by reducing his own will to nothing more than a refusal to do anything. Bartleby slowly dies. How could Joyce and Wittgenstein answer or respond to the rejection of any possiblejustification of life, understanding, communication, community, or hope expressed by Bartleby? Bartleby's refusal to reply to all requests put on him, to all interchange beyond his "I'd prefer not to" leaves him a cipher, part o f a code lost to language because it (I mean "he") is lost to all human community, existing at the limit of language, except for his, therefore curious responses (why respond at all? ). He
has lost any future. We inhabit the possibility of a future as the ground of our being, signaled by our hoping, but embodied in our language and thus susceptible to denial.
Bartleby's refusal o f meaning answers a child's asking "What should (or can) I do now? " : heanswerswithhisownacceptanceofhisboredom. Whyisitorhowcoulditevenbe possible for a child to ask such a question? (What is signaled by the difficulty o f knowing whether to ask "why" or "how" here? ). If we have forgotten the child's question what have we replaced it with? Are our everyday practices enough like those o f animals to say
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
541
? that this question is no longer relevant in the way it is not for them? How (and why) does the justification Bartleby fails to find underlie our uses o f language? Bartleby has reduced himselfj in a kind o f devolving exhaustion, to a single intention attached to a single desire: to refuse through a complete disengagement from all external, relative to his single intention, demands and intentions. This intention is circular, a continual negation o f the future and therefore an assertion o f a presentness, which does not even include any desire (except his resistance). Without a future or a future directed set o f desires Bartleby has erased hope from his world. He has diminished himselfto the edge of humanity. He remains human primarily through the exercise of his will to resist the demands or appeals directed toward him. This is a way of again asking what is the theological dimensions of
Wittgenstein's use o f the soul in Philosophical Investigations?
I f the moment seems to describe human consciousness, the structure o f the future
as a possibility seems to be described by a machine. Wittgenstein analyzes the figuration ofthe future as a machine:
The machine as symbolizing its action: the action o f a machine--I might say at first--seems to be there in it from the start. What does that mean? --If we know the machine, everything else, that is its movement, seems to be already completely determined. (PI? 193)
In this the possibility o f a movement seems determined by the structure o f the machine. The parts could o f course fail, but "in many cases we don't think o f that at all. We use a machine, or the drawing of a machine, to symbolize a particular action of the machine. " The machine symbolizes its own action, and thus it embodies as the aspect of its structure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
542
? a kind of self-reflection in which its future is determined as a function of what it is. In this itsfunctioningfollowsanidealizedpathalreadytranscendentwithinitsdesign. Amachine seems to generate time through its determined changes in state, the unrolling of a pattern determined by its structure (or seemingly what in the Tractatus Wittgenstein calls, with some ambiguity as Ramsey points out, "the form o f representation [which] is the possibility that the things are so combined with one another as are the elements o f the picture" (2. 1511). Machine time can be described by a diagram o f the machine itself,
where its future actions, its description o f its own changes by those changes, is derived from "the movement of its parts from it [the diagram] (Just as we can give someone a number by telling him that it is the twenty-fifth in the series 1, 4, 9, 16. . . . ). " Such a series , a time-line ofbefore and afters, and our translation into such a machine would translate McTaggert's A-series into a B-series, the existential now into an objectified history, the formula o f dynamism Adams uses to figure himself within a Godless universe.
Wittgenstein diagnoses the mistake in this picturing o f the machine's future movements as if these movements were objects "already lying in a drawer and which we then take out. " These future movements are the way we configure the future for the machine. If faced with an actual machine we no longer assume its parts will not fail. Thus we can see the machine under two different aspects: the putative movements in (1) the machine-as-symbol which functions "far more determinably than in (2) the actual machine. " Thepredeterminedmovementsinthemodelofthemachinesymbolizingitself might seem to be already present in the symbol itself (PI? 193). The motion o f the machine, the movement describing time, seems condensed into the design of the machine
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
? made manifest in the machine itself as if the machine were a drawing o f itself at all possible moments.
Wittgenstein goes on to investigate this seeming presentness o f the future in the machine as symbol: "When does one have the thought: the possible movements o f a machine are already there in it in some mysterious sense? -- Well when one is doing philosophy" (PI? 194). Putting philosophical pressure on our descriptions of machines separates the concept of the possibility of movement from our actual usage of the "phrase 'possibility of movement' when we are talking about a given machine". We imagine because of the defined character of the parts and actions of a machine that the possibility of its movement is somehow part of it, "like a shadow of the movement itself. "2 This possibility, this shadow, we imagine attached to that which is (or can) move; we imagine an entire world constructed out of possibility and tangent to every actual movement and change. Aheadofit? alongsideit?
Wittgenstein asks how we use the phrase "possibility of movement when we are talking about a given machine? " An answer:
We say "Experience will shew whether this gives the pin this possibility of movement", but we do not say "Experience will shew whether this is the possibility ofthis movement": 'so it is not an empirical fact that this possibility is the possibility o f precisely this movement'. (PI? 194)
If we say Adams wants to formalize himselfj so that he describes a kind of logical engine, does one ask o f him "Will experience show whether this formula (or any description) is a formuladescribingbeingasaformula? "Apossibilitydoesnotexistwithintheworld. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
544
? is not an intentionality ofgears and wheels, but a figuration ofbeing human as an effect of a being described by the mechanisms ofthe world (made visible for Adams in the laws of physics). Human beings become fictions ofthe world, fictions which we can best interpret through, at least for Adams, a kind of metaphorized science.
What happens when we separate "the possibility o f movement" from a particular usage and hypostatize it as somehow present in the machine, finding the future somehow present in the present? Would Wittgenstein's therapy dissolve Adams' translation of himself into a machine (dynamo) or formula, his analogizing himself as a possibility made manifest through the workings of nature? If one becomes a formula one's future is determined, present in the formula itself. At the very least this is a misunderstanding of thenatureoftheuseofmathematicsinphysics. Thisusageisimmenselycomplicated. Mathematical functions can serve as representations, interpretations, measurements, descriptive metaphor and so on. Does this mean that mathematics functions as a language? How could a mathematical syntax correlated with data function like a full blownlanguage? Couldsyntaxembodyafuture? AnaspectofAdams'misunderstanding, however, exposes a deep problem: what is the relation between description and metaphor? A more fundamental version of this question is what is the relationship between
algorithms and metaphors? In this question there lies another book (fully present? ). But this question points at the nature of the mistake Wittgenstein is investigating. The confusion about the future, as if it were present in the present, arises whenever we imagine that the meaning or future sense of something lies in a picture of it, in a symbol, in the thing-itself when we are not using it but when it serves to stand for itself. Their are two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
545
? confusions here. The first confusion follows from the extraction o f signs and objects from their ordinary use into some meta-description. In the second confusion, the process of symbolization makes visible the future in such a way that it gets attached to any meaningful unit within this process as ifpart ofthe physiognomy ofthis unit. Things can symbolize themselves. What Wittgenstein is exposing here is the grammatical structure of the future, and the temptations for distortion that attend our functioning within symbol systems:
"But I don't mean that what I do now (in grasping a sense) determines the future use causally and as a matter o f experience, but that in a queer way, the use itself is in some sense present. " But of course it is, 'in some queer sense'! Really the only thing wrong with what you say is the expression "in a queer way". The rest is all right; and the sentence only seems queer when one imagines a different language game for it from the one in which we actually use it. (PI? I95)
The sense o f the future being present in a word or in the 'now' is the result o f how these words or any 'now' emerges and functions within a grammar which describes the future within its symbolic processes. Because this symbolic structure can seem to collapse into a word it seems to excavate within a word a possibility for meaning which is at the same time a possibility for the future. This future, however, is not present in the word in any real sense. It is rather a part of our grammar. Because words and the 'now' function within language (or a symbolic grammar) they can symbolize themselves (as can a machine). Thisself-symbolizationextractsthewordorthe'now'fromitsgrammar. At this point the future (or meaning) seems "in some sense present" in a "queer way. " We
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
546
? have brought the word or the 'now' to the surface without its grammar, and thus the future use seems present in the word.
When we attempt to describe our experience as if this experience were not embedded in language games, as if we grasped the future first before our use of the word 'future' in a particular language game, our experience seems odd (Cf. Edward's failure to lose himself when he loses his wife). For Wittgenstein this oddness is an effect o f a mistake. Adams, however, translates himself into machine metaphors because o f a failure of moral language (of the sort MacIntyre describes in After Virtue), which makes any morality incoherent. This incoherence he understands as an effect of the collapse of an ontology (theology) in which a moral stance is binding because it is embedded in a set of ontological commitments. Adams' asks, in effect, can we make moral sense in any version of our language? One could also ask what kind of moral pressure do science and technology place on the coherence of our ordinary language? (This question is one result of my inquiry).
Earlier I presented a scene describing one way o f recognizing the force o f this question. I wrote, "As in the machine symbolism of Yeats the symbols of identity constituting 'What The Thunder Said', the words we understand as something we can say in a world in which we might find ourselves, if not now, someday or yesterday, offer themselves as containers for our minds, and in this offer o f our translation into the structure of a thing we project our essential self, as if that is what our life means to us. The logic o f identity, o f equivalence, not the copula, nor the 'is' o f existence, articulates not only what the poetry means but what we mean by ourselves. The fragments of The Waste
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
547
? Land are dying (or are dead) in the way that we are dead or dying. This is the crucial analogy. The temptation toward a theory o f identity as a theory o f meaning builds minds, as we saw in Jakobson, because it is the limit o f death that constructs our lives as containers (with holes, as sieves ofvarious lands, shapes, and sizes). To enter language through identity is as if to enter as a container. "
And Wittgenstein might respond: "Every sign by itself seems dead. What gives it life? -- In use it is alive. Is life breathed into it there? --Or is the use its life? " (PI? 432). We have two kinds ofuse here. Does use give signs a kind oflife, as ifthe words are puppets or wind-up toys; or are they hammers and saws, with no hidden strings or engines. Thedifferenceseemstobeoneofhowmediatedourrelationistothesewords. Do we give them their power to then go and do their work, or is their energy and use always intimately ours. But Eliot or Joyce might also asks 'Do all uses offer the same life? ' Shouldn't we also be debating about kinds o f life? This would be to revisit the history and conceptual logic ofthe development ofthe soul from distinct eschatological and psychological souls, what Arbman called, in his study o f the Vedic soul, the free soul and the body-soul, into a unified soul under the semantic rubric of the free soul. J.
Breamer argues that a similar conceptual unification took place in Greece, where Homer's description o f human beings under the aspects o f many souls, the body-soul (thymos, noos, and menos) and the free soul (psyche) is later unified in the Psyche. Aristotle in his history of the soul in Book I ofDe Anima organizes the development of a united soul around the principle of movement (kinesis) and of perception (disthesis). Such principles define one set o f criteria for animation. Aristotle transforms these criteria into the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
548
? characterization o f the soul as "the first entelecheia o f a natural body that potentially has life" (De anima. 11. 412a). ( I do not explicate what this means here; I think, however, Heidegger's animation o f the thing is a development o f this definition o f the soul as a descriptionoftheworld. Itrytoshowthisinmyanalysisof"DasDing"; partofwhatI need here is the idea that we enter into language through the figure of its animation).
"In use it [a sign] is alive" describes our use o f words as if tools, where the hatchet vanishes into an extension o f our arm. Or as if I found an order floating my way and I accept it as directed to me. I accept it into me; this is my act o f will and understanding. The order is an algorithm and once understood takes over my body (or mind) and I act. So someone might say "There is a gulfbetween an order and its execution. It has to filled by the act of understanding. " Can we refuse the order if we understand it? Wittgenstein does not invoke the will, but points to the will as a negative, as what would answer his question: If I give an order to someone--"How does he know at all what use he is to makeofthesignsIgivehim,whatevertheyare? "(PI? 433). TheWillfillsthisrole,butof course to offer the will as an answer here is simply to offer another black box. Is this different from becoming alive?
If it is asked: "How do sentences manage to represent? "--the answer might be: "Don't you know? You certainly see it, when you use them. " For nothing is concealed.
How do sentences do it? --Don't you know? For nothing is hidden.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
549
? But given this answer: "But you know how sentences do it, for nothing is concealed" one would like to retort "Yes, but it all goes by so quick, and I should like to see it as it were laid open to view. "(PI? 435)
Wittgenstein resists the view that language "goes by so quick. " This sense of effervescence expresses a dissatisfaction with ordinary language, which can seem "too crude" to capture phenomena that, as Augustine writes, "easily elude us, and, in their coming to be and passing away, produce those others as an average effect". What eludes us when we use language? Nothing. Then why do we insist that something eludes us? If we ask "how do sentences do it?
