ZeroNowhere

BTW I absolutely loooove your statement "if you're not a Metalhead you might as well be dead."

Same here comrade. I have the whole book marked up. I hate how the author implies that basically holding any allegiance to an ideology is religion.

[Reply] My avatar is something I saved over ten years ago when someone in alt.binaries.clip-art requested drawings of the phoenix and responders posted many versions. I have used this and a few other variations of red bird drawings as trademarks when selling merchandise on my web site crimsonbird.com .

I've basically been rather busy, and apparently too lazy to enter a short URL. Still, I should be able to come here fairly regularly now. Thanks for asking.

Well, Rupert Read is one of of the 'New Wittgensteinians', with whom I agree over several things, but not all.

And there is some similarity between the way I say somethings and the way they say them, but I was arguing this way 25 years ago.

And, you are right, I have not slavishly followed Wittgenstein in everything he says and does, nor have I copied his style. I do not want to be a Wittgenstein-clone.

You are also right about his view of Marx, but I'd never read Rupert's work for advice on Marx anyway.

His latest book 'Applying Wittgenstein' is not so good; his best book is on Thomas Kuhn, co-authored with Wes Sharrock. His next best book, on Peter Winch, is 'There is no such things as Social Science', co-authored with Wes Sharrock and Phil Hutchinson.

Some of his papers are very good, but others not so.

Elizabeth Anscombe's work is always worth reading, but she is never easy to follow.

In Essay Thirteen Part Three, go to sections (3b) and (3e).

No, his comment 'these words have no meaning' it is a feature of a wrong-turn W took in his later work, that the meaning of a proposition is the way it is being used, and since those asleep are not using propositions in the way we do, they cannot mean anything by what they say.

But, he has confused what these words mean with what a dreamer could possibly mean by using them -- we distinguish now between word-meaning and speaker's meaning to get round this difficulty.

So W confuses several distinct meanings of 'meaning' here -- but there is a more serious error in his thought here, which I explore in Essay Thirteen Part Three.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

I list the many senses of 'meaning' that W runs together (as most others do, too), here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=85

No, he is not saying that it is senseless, only that we would not take the words of someone who was dreaming as accurate testimony -- even if what they said 'corresponded' with the facts -- anymore than we'd take the words written on a card as testimony.

So, if, say, you saw the following words on a card left halfway up a mountain, and it was obvious that the card had been there for some time: "Today is Wednesday", and it was Wednesday, you would not regard the card as telling you the truth, even though the sentence it carried just happened to be true.

Well, I am not sure I know what you mean -- as far as I know Wittgenstein does not really say much about dreaming, except that no one would be credited with understanding the use of this and related words if he/she did not know that dreaming is something we do when asleep. So, anyone who imagined they were dreaming when they were awake would be counted as either radically confused or delusional. On the other hand, anyone who imagined they were awake when they were dreaming would have no impact on our opinion of them, nor on our concept of dreaming, since they are asleep, and only dreaming, and that is the kind of thing we sometimes imagine when asleep.

So, I am not sure what you mean by this:

"W's repudiation of the dream hypothesis as senseless.To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it would stand up, due to lucid dreaming", since I do not know what you mean by the 'dream hypothesis', still less whether or not W repudiated it.