(on Young's "private language")

[Aimee Farr]

On the regulation of storytellers:

 	And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen, who are so
clever that they can 	imitate anything, comes to us, and makes a proposal to
exhibit himself and his poetry, we 	will fall down and worship him as a
sweet and holy and wonderful being; but we must also 	inform him that in our
State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow 	them.
And so when we have anointed him with myrrh, and set a garland of wool upon
his head, 	we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for
our souls' health the 	rougher and severer poet or story-teller, who will
imitate the style of the virtuous only, 	and will follow those models which
we prescribed at first when we began the education of 	our soldiers. --
Plato's cynicism in The Republic

A passing shadow wrote, quoting S a n d y's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

> >Thats easy.  If ones purpose is to communicate to a given audience, it is
> >the responsibility of the communicator to find the words, images
> or whatever
> >that will have meaning to most members of that audience.

Let us walk, then, and speak of the meaning of meaning:

		" http://www.learn.columbia.edu/raphael/htm/raphael_philo.htm "
		Raphael, The Stanza della Segnatura, The School Of Athens

Meaning is two or more objects in a relationship. As language is imperfect,
the 'disposition of the sign' is rarely a mirror image in two minds. Sandy's
argument exemplifies Wittgensteinian thought: a perfect language is one that
has TOTAL identity of reference, and all communication should have this
goal. For Sandy, anything else is "nonsensical."

	Those who have the strongest power of reasoning, and who most skilfully
arrange their 	thoughts in order to tender them clear and intelligible, have
the best power of persuasion 	even if they can but speak the language of
Lower Brittany and have never learned Rhetoric. 	And those who have the most
delightful original ideas and who know how to express them with 	the maximum
of style and suavity, would not fail to be the best poets even if the art of
Poetry were unknown to them. (Descartes)

> This is not TV, Sandy. Or a public school, or politically correct
> town meeting.

Anonymous, (a fellow Sophist? FN1), points out that mass media is written
for the masses.

A larger point is that THOUGHT PRESUPPOSES LANGUAGE. By limiting your
language to the lowest common denominator, your limit the 'lodestar' of the
sign vehicles. American media speaks in the lowest common denominator in the
interest of social justice and convenience. Some feel it has worked an equal
injustice by hobbling our ability to THINK. "The limits of my language are
the limits of my mind." (Wittgenstein)

Great THOUGHT rarely speaks to the lowest common denominator. Great DIALOGUE
is not betwixt idiots.

> I, for one, enjoy JYA postings. It takes some intelligence  to twist
> the tongue in the right way and also to understand the implied. It is
> fun, since thought process is revealed and much more info conveyed.

	My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me 	eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when one has used
them -- as steps -- to climb 	up beyond them. (Wittgenstein)

> You seem to exhibit standard american "culture" conditioning that
> denigrates
> everything which is not immediately understandable by complete idiots.

Anonymous is correct when he says we are limited by our cultural language
conventions and folkways. I believe other cultures plowed richer fields of
thought.

> Even if "everyone" programs in visual basic, there is still beauty,
> style and efficiency to be done in C or assembly. And there are things
> which cannot be done in VB.

"Let the use of words teach you their meaning." (Wittgenstein) I find
Young's wordplay provoking. He buries little treasures in there
sometimes...very unique. Our language folkways limit our conceptualization,
and THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH THROUGH DIALOGUE.

Just because language invokes a personal dialogue does not mean it invalid,
or limited to an emotive conveyance. In this category fall the most powerful
*communicative* works of human existence. Poetry and prose can attain equal
footing with logical factual propositions, such as those couched in Justice
and Philosophy.

	" http://www.learn.columbia.edu/raphael/htm/raphael_ceiling_details.htm "
		Raphael, The Stanza della Segnatura, The Ceiling (see iconography)

> Like genital action, for example. I understand that that is your
expertise.

	"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Wittgenstein)

My apologies for taking license, but it's the Allegory of the Cave in here
sometimes....

~Aimee

1. In an Aristotelian sense.