Richard B. wrote:
DHR wrote:
>> This theory is self-refuting. Wittgenstein forms this theory about
>>language, yet claimed that theories were meaningless.
>Boy, that Wittgenstein was a real idiot! What could he have been
>thinking?
>Damn! He says language is arbitrary and meaningless. Yet he uses
>language to say that! What a paradox! What a dilemma! How can it be
>resolved?
James W. wrote:
> d) Richard brings up the possibility that it is a paradox, and
>unresolvable.
In this case, Richard did not really make a comment about Wittgenstein per
se, but made a comment about my state of consciousness--an apparently rigid
mentality of seeing the world through a limited model that is based on a program
called "logic". James, on the other hand, responded to what Richard said, as if
Richard expressed an opinion about the topic of Wittgenstein. There seemed a
clash of paradigms, as one guy relates to an action (ie. mental functioning)
while the other relates to an idea (ie. Witt's paradox). This can create a
conflict that has nothing to do with ideas, but states of consciousness, in
which the guy in World 3 doesn't get the guy in World 2.
Richard wrote:
>He is a prisoner of your mind!
Maybe you can let him (Wittgenstein) out if you show me he has something
interesting to say.
Richard is a man in Seattle who said that memes control us and that there's no
such thing as truth. Now, YOU are a prisoner in my mind. Try to escape.
--David