No More Learning

We cannot see the landscape at all as a landscape without these sketches. Such sketches illustrate our involvement with language, that is, they illustrate us. The landscape
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
513
? of language is neither inside nor outside what we are. These sketches are one way of constituting ourselves as something at all. This is a way o f saying that self-reflection is a peculiar kind o f limit.
Wittgenstein pictures us as flies:
What is your aim in philosophy? - To shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle. (PI? 309)
A fly in its bottle is an image of nature contained. But do we think that, as an image for philosophy, we have made this bottle and translated ourselves into some beyond so that we do not see our making. Maybe such making is literature and such forgetfulness is what Derrida means by philosophy's denial of writing, in which case we have translated ourselves into this fly. A clear picture ofthe trap only allows our translated and reduced form, the 'I' of our grammar, to escape. The trap itself, pointing as it does to some mysterious purpose, only shows our transcendent presence. But this is not a metaphysical transcendence,andwearenotleftwithTractariansilence. Thistranscendentpointis something like metaphoric or aesthetic transcendence. It is what is captured in the phrase "the nature ofthe investigation. " This nature is our ordinary involvement in our world. "The aspect o f things that are most important for us are hidden because o f their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something --because it is always before one's eyes)" (129). How is this importance determined? or known at all or as 'importance'?
The fly-bottle forms a limit, a picture of our world as if within a clear sphere, but this limit does not act to distort what we see (or let's say minimally) but rather to restrict
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
514
? the scope of our world. We cannot see the glass because we have no way of contrasting it with what we see:
We predicate of the thing what lies in the method of representing it. Impressed by the possibility o f a comparison, we think we are perceiving a state o f affairs o f the highest generality. (PI? 104)
One thinks that one is tracing the outline ofthe thing's nature over and over again,
and one is merely tracing round the frame though which we look at it. (PI? 114) This frame expresses itselfas a necessity, a must, that confuses the requirements or the criteria organizing a picture or a language game with the nature of what we see. We forget the distance between our descriptions and what is because we fail to recognize our involvement within these descriptions. This is also a lesson ofFinnegans Wake: "Wipe your glosses with what you know" (304. F3). Neither the glosses (interpretive frames and explanatory emendations) nor what is seen constitutes knowledge (although they may constitute knowing). This knowledge is something like 'enveloping facts' and thus suggests that not only does it form the context o f our seeing (that is our knowing functions through and within what we already know) but what we know functions as the corrective means by which we enter particular language games or locally defined
epistemes. )
An aspect (how we see something, a cube, a face, our language, ourselves) and an
image (the thing presented) can be seen as aspects or images, as embedded interpretations of each other. Wittgenstein calls them akin, and then in a subtle form of self-reflection
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
515
? describes seeing this kinship as both the result of imagination, and thus o f creation or interpretation, and ofperception, and thus ofpresentation, that which is given: "Doesn't it take imagination to hear something as a variation on a particular theme? And yet one is perceiving something in so hearing it" (PI p. 213). There is a limit, however, to what I am calling here 'embedded interpretation. ' Both "[s]eeing an aspect" and imagining are subject to the will. There is such an order as "Imagine this", and also: "now see the figure likethis";butnot:"Nowseethisleafgreen. " Thefactthatweseethegreenofaleafcan
bedescribed,andinthiscaseexplained,byphysicsandourbiology. Thismightjustify Wittgenstein's claim from a page before that "To interpret is to think, to do something; seeing is a state". When he says a few remarks latter that the concept of an aspect ('I am now seeing it as . . . ") is akin to imagining and is a form of seeing, and in both cases is subject to the will, he seems to have contradicted his initial claim that seeing is not thinking but a state. This contradiction follows from exploring the grammar o f 'seeing an aspect', a function of the family resemblance between meanings of words. But the effect of this contradiction or multiplicity is the demand that the sense of these two remarks be
justified in relation to the other. This is not the same justification for the fragmented character of the text as a whole, or of any particular fragment or set of remarks. It is akin, but this justification describes as the limit o f these fragments the journeying and the ordinariness of our involvement in the world (form of life). It is a picture of this fragmentationfromtheinside. Thisinsideisthe'I'asembodiedwithinourlanguage games and form of life. This 'I' labels our involvement within language games, in our form o f life, and in our interpretations allegories, concepts, metaphors, fly-bottles, engines,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
516
? and so on. The T cannot be pictured as anything at all; the conceptual structure o f our forms o f life are slippery and vague because we cannot get outside o f them. Language games, by comparison, are more defined because we slip in and out o f them.
Such an T , therefore, is a kind of aesthetic interpretation. Does this mean that we enter into language games through such interpretations? We animate language both through(1) theuseoflanguage,asiffromthelimitsofourformoflife,asafunctionof biology, within history and culture, and through (2) the functioning o f language, o f words withinsentencesandofsentenceswithinlargerholisims. This'I'isfiguredthroughthis use and within this functioning as a point o f shifting within the totalities o f sentences, metaphors, language games, fictions, worlds, form(s) of life. We can find ourselves both
within and outside of language games. Language games can function within our form of life (we can use them) or our form of life can be read under the aspect of such games (where our form of life can seem constituted by [a] language game[s], and in this sense these gamesfunction).
"When I read a poem or narrative with feeling, surely something goes on in me which does not go on when I merely skim the lines for information. " --What processes am I alluding to? --The sentences have a different ring. I pay careful attentiontomyintonation. Sometimesawordhasthewrongintonation,I emphasize it too much or too little. I notice this and shew it in my face. I might later talk about my reading in detail, for example about the mistakes in my tone of voice. Sometimes a picture, as it were an illustration, comes to me. And this seems to help me read with the correct expression. And I could mention a good
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
517
? deal more o f the same kind. --I can also give a word a tone o f voice which brings out the meaning ofthe rest, almost as ifthis word were a picture ofthe whole thing. (PI p. 214)
If a picture can model my speaking of a poem, then the picture illustrates the poem in the same way in which my reading it does. If a poem 'moves me', such movement is not a processthat"goesoninme",butratheramarkofhowIinhabitthislanguage. This inhabitation, however, is an interpretation, that is an illustration ofthe poem. Do the fragments ofInvestigations give 'a word a tone ofvoice which brings out the meaning of the rest'? The totality of language is present in every sentence. This presence is not a proof or a justification of the fragment as it is in the Tractaius (It is the characteristic mark o f logical propositions that one can perceive in the symbol alone that they are true; and
this fact contains the whole philosophy of logic" [6. 113; see also 5. 47]) or by the criterion Keats gives for a poem ("They will explain themselves-- as all poems should do without any comment [2 January 1818])4(This is a way of construing the romantacism of logic). These fragments function as both interpretations or illustrations (sketches) ofthe landscape o f our language and ourselves and as expressions o f an aspect o f our language and ourselves. The limit of interpretation is determined by our involvement in our language not by any special form of words. This involvement might be dictated, more or less, by circumstances or context, but it remains a function of my involvement:
I have a theme played to me several times and each time in a slower tempo. In the end I say "Now it's right", or "Now at last it's a march", "Now at last it's a dance". --The same tone ofvoice expresses the dawning ofaspect. (PI p. 206)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
518
? This tone ofvoice marking a recognition ofa criterion or a model in a particular performance (an example) expresses the involvement within the forms o f experience that Wittgenstein expresses when he asserts that he will only accept as his own property, his ownvoice,thoseideasthatbearhisstamp,histone: "Ifmyremarksdonotbearastamp which marks them as mine, --I do not wish to lay any further claim to them as my property"(x). Tosayherecognizeshimselfinhiswork(let'ssayasanexpressionofhis intentions) like he recognizes a march in music is not meant to describe an argument between a picture and an example. Does he say 'I could have written these words'? Or when he reads his words does he inhabit them as if expressing his beliefthat X? Do we recognize Wittgenstein's hand in his words as we might recognize his face in a picture?
What constitutes language as property, especially for a philosopher famous for arguingfortheessentialpublicnatureoflanguage? Thisclaimofownership,or renouncing o f ownership, is partly a response to his own vanity, as he claims, and to the distorted theft o f his voice:
Up to a short time ago I had really given up the idea o f publishing my work in my lifetime. It used, indeed, to be revived from time to time: mainly because I was obliged to learn that my results (which I had communicated in lectures, typescripts and discussions), variously misunderstood, more or less mangle or watered down, were in circulation. This stung my vanity and I had difficulty in quieting it. (ix-x)
I do not want to investigate the publishing history surrounding his work, nor the psycho- dynamics o f intellectual pride and power in Wittgenstein's conception o f teaching and thinking. One can at least suggest that his vanity is also a function o f his concern that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
519
? thoughts be properly expressed, or even that what constitutes truth is as much (or more) a function of expression than of the content of any particular claim. In reading Wittgenstein one should always ask what is the difference between an example or a metaphor and an argumentoraclaim. Howandwhereonemakesthesedistinctionsoftenconstitutes thinking for Wittgenstein. This is one way of understanding "What I am looking for is the grammatical difference" (PI p. 185). In Wittgenstein's philosophy o f distinction and expression (or form) misrepresentation is a greater failure than the mangled theft of his ideasmightatfirstseem. ItisalsotruethathedidnotpublishtheInvestigationsinhis lifetime. Thisultimateresistancetopublicationbearssomescrutiny. Initselfitisa statement about what and how philosophy functions within the impersonal relations created in the modem university and in publishing. But the importance o f this resistance is also linked to his use of remarks and fragments. He says,
I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble o f thinking. But if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own.
[[I should have liked to produce a good book. This has not come about, but the time is past in which I could improve it. ]] (x)
As in Emerson, writing toward stimulating others into thinking means how to read him is always at issue. Thus, we can understand his hesitancy to publish as a concern for his work not to be read as his thought, but as his thinking: a philosophical novel as opposed to a philosophical tract.
Wittgenstein writes so as to draw the right kind of picture of the limits marking language and mind, limits understood as the ordinary condition o f being human, as shifting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
? between aspects o f a defined set o f ontological commitments. Language in this sense is not directed at things, or the world, or others as such but functions through and as a complexmatrixofcommitmentsthatresolveintohowoneis. Theworld,things,artifacts, others are figured through shifting expressions o f being (understood as an evolving set o f practices), a continual projection o f what counts as real through commitments arising out of de facto commitments to what one is oneself not through self-definition.
Although we inhabit language, we do not 'inhabit our head'. The singularity of my perspective cannot be claimed as mine, as if I said "'At any rate only I have got THIS"'(PI? 398). Wittgensteinimmediatelyasks"Whatarethesewordsfor? Theyserve no purpose," at least, I want to add, as an act o f communication. But how do I inhabit my language if not through my claim that the world is mine? This claim 'I have got THIS' is nonsense if understood to be about my perception, but it expresses an ownership o f a perspective within language that is refracted through my manifestation within language (whatWittgensteincalls'hisstamp'). Onlywhatcanbeownedbyotherpeoplecanbe ownedatall. Wittgensteinasks"Inwhatsensehaveyougotwhatyouaretalkingabout
and saying that only you have got it? Do you possess it? You do not even see it" (PI? 398). Why do we not see this 'THIS"? This claim is a modified version of Wittgenstein's earlier rejection of a picture of my world as if a visual field converging on an eye. I cannot see or say the limit o f my world or else it would not be a limit. One mightrathersay(althoughmisleadingly)thatthelimitofmyworldhasmeandnotIit: "if as a matter of logic you exclude other people's having something, it loses its sense to say
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
521
? that you have i t . . . . Inasmuch as it cannot be any one else's it is not mine either" (PI? 398). Thisisagrammaticalremarkabout'beingmine'.
Wittgenstein ends this remark with a description o f another picture o f a landscape: Think o f a picture in a landscape, an imaginary landscape with a house in it. -- Someone asks "Whose house is that? "--The answer, by the way, might be "It belongs to the farmer who is sitting on the bench in front o f it". But then he cannot for example enter his house. (PI? 398)
One should not confuse a representation ofa house for the actual house. This picture of representation is meant to illustrate the metaphor of a 'visual room' as the picture underlyingtheclaimthatmyphenomenalexperienceismine. Justasthefarmerinthe picture cannot enter his house, the 'I' who imagines his world as if it were this visual room "can as little own it as I can walk about it, or look at it, or point to it. " If I move so does the 'visual room'; I can never move from the limit o f my world into it, and thus it is not anything that can be owned or identified (even in saying this I have not pointed to anything).
In the Preface, the ownership of words and their configurations as ideas, methods, stories, perspectives are disputed as the point at which representation and thinking (as versionsofconsciousness)canbecontested. Thedesiretopublishoutofwoundedvanity (or to counter the mistakes o f others as opposed to his own) is contrasted with his desire to publish generated by re-reading the Tractatus in order to "explain its ideas to someone. It suddenly seemed to me that I should publish those old thoughts and the new ones
together: that the latter could be seen in the right light only be contrast with and against
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
522
? the background of my old way o f thinking. " As part of a truncated genealogy (a Tractarian beginning and an Investigations end) a context would be established that would establish a point in comparison with which the entire Philosophical Investigations could be seen as a way of doing philosophy different, but still related, to the drive to establish the limits of logical truth in the Tractatus. Would this context, however,
establish his thoughts as his own (for others or himself? Is this my thought in the way these words are mine or not mine? )? :
For more than one reason what I publish here will have points o f contact with what other people are writing today. --If my remarks do not bear a stamp which marks them as mine, - I do not wish to lay any further claim to them as my property. " (x)
One imagines that this stamp would throw out of court those "more or less mangled or watereddown"versionsofhisthinkingthatotherscirculated. Wittgenstein,however, makes a curious claim here: what is 'my property' 'bear[s] a stamp which marks them as mine. ' What is this 'stamp'? The physiognomy o f words that allows us to understand them as particular words within particular sentences with specific meanings somehow also expresses (at the sametime? ) the physiognomy ofWittgenstein's identity- or should I say soul and thus of his body? ("The human body is the best picture of the human soul" [PI
p. 178]). In the Tractatus the grammar of 'my world" required a non-psychological 'I' describing the limit of the world. Has this 'I' been translated from its vanishing metaphysical limit to a more localized limit surrounding or determining the application of particular language games (or sentences) with an expression oftheir origin into a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
? particularform? Suchanorigin,sinceitisnotthecauseofasentence,describes,instead, an aesthetic 'I' (a particular form that expresses, and thus is a kind of interpretation).
In the Tractatus Wittgenstein both claimed to have solved the problems of philosophy and yet to make "no claim to novelty in points of detail" (27).
The power of the Tractatus is in showing how what we know means, that is, in arranging and interpretingintoclarity(statingthetruthsoflogicintherightform)whatistrue. This clarity o f expression, form and arrangement allows him to claim that "[h]ow far my efforts agree with those o f other philosophers I will not decide. "
Wittgenstein claims that to see his new thoughts "in the right light only by contrast with and against the background of my old of thinking". The Tractatus, like the remarks or sketches that constitute Investigations, will serve as an "object of comparison. " A sketchistothelandscapeasaremarkistoourpractice. Onecanmakeanynumberof different kinds o f sketches. The arrangement o f these remarks serves to bring to light another picture within the landscape of our ordinary and philosophical practices. The object of this arrangment is "to bring light into one brain (Gehim) or another. "
Philosophical Investigations can be seen in the right light through a comparison to the Tractatus, a comparison ofnot only a method ofthinking, but the scope and application of
this thinking as a way of marking and constituting particular kinds of limits. In the preface to the Tractatus Wittgenstein wrote the following:
The book deals with the problems o f philosophy and shows, as I believe, that the method o f formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding o f the logicofourlanguage. It'swholemeaningcouldbesummedupsomewhatas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
524
? follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
The book will, therefore draw a limit to thinking, or rather --not to thinking, but to the expression ofthoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides o f this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).
The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side o f the limit will be simply nonsense. (27)
Even a realm o f nonsense cannot be seen from within language. The articulation o f what can be said clearly (the formulation of a language into the form oftautology) and what this clearly means (tautology) takes up the majority o f the book. Clarity in language describes what can be known as true. The more controversial last part ofthe Tractatus describes the limit between what we can know and is true and nonsense. (I think this last 'part' begins at 6. 342, "And now we can see the relative position of logic and mechanics"; I say this because the discussion of mechanics describes the limit between cause and the realm ofwhat I think we can call interpretation: will, ethics, and aesthetics). The will becomes
in his latter work the target of philosophy; aesthetics as a form of philosophy and in the invocation of art (painting, music, and poetry) comes to describe the limits of sense from
within language; ethics becomes transmuted into modes ofbeing within forms oflife. If the metaphysical 'I' is replaced by the shifting concept of form(s) of life, both constituting and constituted by our language, our practices, our biology, our commitments, by both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
525
? anyone's particularity and the totality organized around this particularity, then ethics are enacted within and as any particular form of life.
To see Wittgenstein's sketch as a picture of some landscape means not only to see each remark as either an observation or a work of art, but to enter into the limit described by the sketch, to see an arranged, edited and delimited version of a trip set out in an album. Theironyofdescribingthisphilosophyasanalbumofsketches,setsouta subterranean frame that includes Philosophical Investigations as both the problem to be solved and a consequence of this problem, an attempted solution. In remark 38 he writes "For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday. " What counts as a holiday and what counts as ordinary life, what counts as seeing (and misinterpretation) and seeingintherightlightisalwaysinquestion. Thesedistinctionsdescribethedifference between a sketch and the light (the arrangement, the context o f comparison) by which we see it and the light by which we understand, or rather by which we understand ourselves.
This last is the light in our brain.
Wittgenstein's use ofthe image oflight is invariably related to his philosophical
goal o f presenting a perspicuous view o f our language use, to make visible what is already obvious. This use o f light is entwined with a quasi-religious use that describes thinking as if the limits of the world illuminate us:
Is what I am doing really worth the effort? Yes, but only if a light shines on it from above. And if that happens--why should I concern myself that the fruits o f my labours should be stolen? If what I am writing really has some value, how could
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
526
? anyone steal the value from me? And if the light from above is lacking, I can't in
any case be more than clever. (CV57-8)
Compare this to both Keats and Adams. I claimed that, for Keats, "The proverb does not illustrate our life, we illustrate it. Thus soul-making is seeing ourselves as an illustration and the proverb as a description to be illustrated. The transformation o f Proverb into proverb and our life into an illustration becomes an actualization--not as a change of being but as a transformation o f aspect: the proverb is not strictly speaking a description ofourlife,butitisawayofseeingourselves: adescriptionofmeaningasopposedto experience, that is why we illustrate it. " The meaning o f our life emerges through how we
use our life to illustrate language (let's say poetry). Wittgenstein's description o f himself, his thinking, illuminated between the limit o f the world (which he cannot see) and his sketches of the world as he finds it spotlights his activity as an illustration of his sketches onlyifitisilluminatedbythislimit,thislightfromabove. Whatisthislight?
I said that Adams called "for a more radical transformation, an objectification of oneself. . . It is as ifthe demands ofthe world require that we become proverbs ourselves, not illustrations, become types not tokens. " Although the mock identification with the formulaic is alien to Wittgenstein (as is the implicit praise or acceptance of science), the sense of containment within a system within which our practices gain meaning is akin to Wittgenstein's picture o f language. One cannot push this too far, and I only mean it to
bring out that Wittgenstein's sense of containment within language is different from that of Keats'. For Keats we apply language (at least proverbs and by extension poetry) by illustrating it with our lives. Are Wittgenstein's philosophical sketches like Keats'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
527
? proverbial illustrations? If these pictures are interpretations, then are they justifications of or for thinking? Do we collect the pictures for our album to prove we went to Greece? An album exhibits a set of possible perspectives. Such an album describes the same limit relation between a non-psychological T and the world as described in the Tractatus, except that this 'I' is continually reconstituted as or at the limit of the shifting landscape.
In the Tractatus the position ofthe non-psychological 'I' as the limit ofthe world was first introduced in the preface as a description of how one should or could read the Tractatus: "This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it--or similar thoughts. It is therefore not a
text-book. " Understanding is dependent on an identity of thought (or an approximate identity,thespaceofindeterminacy). Ourunderstandingmeansstandingatthe metaphysical point (or T ) from which it was written. We, if we are to understand, must become an T . 5 The common perspective in Investigations is our grounding in our ordinary lives as human beings: K[t]he real foundations of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck him. --And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and powerful" (PI? 129).
The album of sketches that constitutes Investigations is not static, nor is our understandingafunctionofenteringintoametaphysicalposition. Animplicationofthe non-psychological T understood as a metaphysical limit was to require that understanding function as a common mental state, a set o f brain functions that mean every time 'understanding' such that one could say 'this is the true understanding state'. 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.