Skip to content

Grammatical Propositions

August 17, 2009

It’s interesting to consider Wittgenstein in the face of a syntax-connecting machine like Gnoetry. Are the utterances merely expressions of grammatical rules, since it is through the random survival of these rules that the utterances have any meaning at all. When we read a gnoem, are we only merely accepting rules and finding meaning that can be niether confirmed nor confuted by experience. Or, are we engaging in language that has been jarred from its moorings in such a way as to be much better arbiters of messages of and from the world at large?

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. erogk7 permalink
    August 21, 2009 10:47 am

    I think of it as reconstructing meaning (sculpting new meanings) from grammatical shards. It is the breaks in syntax that form the most powerful "stitches" [that's three metaphors already].

    In terms of whether a reader is "finding meaning that can be neither confirmed nor confuted," there is definitely a heavily abstract quality to many gnoems, but abstract concepts, to make any sense, must rely at some level on the experience of the reader and author, and a connection between the two occurs on this level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: