2. What is the case - a fact - is the existence of states of affairs.
a fact is a description of what is
a fact is not a state
a state is a description of a fact
2.01. A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).
a combination of objects is a conception of what is
a state of affairs may or may not be a conception of objects
2.011. It is essential to things that they should be possible constituents of
states of affairs.
there is nothing essential to things
(essence is a description
there are no necessary descriptions
only possible descriptions)
a thing may or may not be a constituent of a state of affairs
that is a thing may or may not be described
(may or may not be an element of an explanation)
2.012. In logic nothing is accidental; if a thing can occur in a state of
affairs, the possibility of the state of affairs must be written into the thing.
a state of affairs is a description
a description of a thing is not the thing
a thing is not necessarily described
a thing can exist without description
2.0121. It would seem to be a sort of accident, that a situation would fit
a thing that could already exist entirely on its own.
If things can occur in states of affairs, the possibility must be in them from the
beginning.
(Nothing in the province of logic can be merely possible and all possibilities
are its facts.)
Just as we are quite unable to imagine spatial objects outside of space or
temporal objects outside of time, so too there is no object that we can imagine excluded from the possibility of combining with others.
If I can imagine objects combined in states of affairs, I cannot imagine
them excluded from the possibility of such combinations.
(a) It would seem to be a sort of accident, that a situation would fit a thing
that could already exist entirely on its own.
a thing is a conception
a situation is a conception of a thing in relation to other things
a conception is always within a conception
no thing exists on its own
there is no necessity in things
(b) If things can occur in states of affairs, the possibility must be in them
from the beginning.
it is a question of conception and depth and range of conception
possible descriptions define a thing
a thing can be defined as the totality of possible descriptions
this is to say nothing of a thing
(a thing is a description)
beyond description there is nothing to say
there is no beginning
(c) Nothing in the province of logic can be merely possible and all possibilities are its facts
logic is the theory of possibility
every possibility is not conceivable
possibility is not restricted
facts are possible descriptions
logic is the ground of description
(d) Just as we are quite unable to imagine spatial objects outside of space
or temporal objects outside of time, so too there is no object that we can imagine excluded from the possibility of combining with others.
descriptions (objects) can be conjoined with descriptions
this is to say nothing about that which is described
(e) If I can imagine objects combined in states of affairs, I cannot imagine
them excluded from the possibility of such combinations.
descriptions can be included in descriptions or not
the point of any description simple or complex is action
descriptions provide a basis (to the baseless) in order to facilitate action
description is the only base to action
2.0122. Things are independent in so far as they can occur in all possible situations, but this form of independence is a form of connection with states of affairs, a form of dependence. (It is impossible for words to appear in two different roles: by themselves and in propositions.)
all possible situations cannot be conceived
a thing can be conceived as independent - it can be conceived in relation to
a thing in itself is indeterminate
we cannot know what is independent of conception
conception defines
definition is decision
all decisions are finally arbitrary
a word is not an appearance
a word can be used in an ostensive definition
(it can be the sound of a signification
the sound of that pointed to)
a proposition signifies
a word can be analyzed within a proposition
an analyzed word must be regarded as independent for its relation to be seen (argued)
(a proposition proposes
a proposition proposes a world
the world of a proposition is always within
there is no proposition that contains all propositions
the world is never exhausted)
2.0123. If I know an object I also know all its possible occurrences in states
of affairs.
(Everyone of these must be part of the nature of an object).
A new possibility cannot be discovered later.
if to know an object is to know all its possible occurrences in states of affairs
I cannot know an object
one's conception of an object - what descriptions apply is a question of circumstance
there is no necessity here
the nature of an object is an open question)
objects exist in space and time
(descriptions are contingent)
discovery is thinking in a different manner
possibilities are conceived in circumstance
the world is fluid
2.0123. If I am to know an object I need not know all its external properties,
I must know all its internal properties.
an object is always an open question
there is no definite description
a description of internal properties is a description of the thing in itself
there is nothing fixed here
an object's external properties are its possibilities in the world
the world is not definable therefore it is not knowable in any final sense
there is no complete knowledge
a thing's external properties are not fixed
'the world' is a description of what we do not know
2.0124. If all objects are given, then at the same time all possible states are
also given.
all objects are not given
conceptions are made not given
possible descriptions are only the possibility of a different conception
possibility cannot be determined in advance
possibility exists because we do not know
2.013. Each thing is, as it were, in a space of possible states of affairs.
This space I can imagine empty, but I cannot imagine the thing without the space.
a space of possible states - is ascribing different descriptions to a thing
(a thing here an initial description - so a thing is never determined except
by fiat - or a decision to leave it alone)
I can't conceive a thing as having no description
space is the ground of description
the absence of complete description is what defines the world
the world is always more than all possible descriptions
2.0131. A spatial object must be situated in infinite space. (A spatial point
is an argument place).
A speck in the visual field, though it need not be red, must have some colour;
it is, so to speak, surrounded by colour space. Notes must have some pitch,
objects of the same touch, must have some degree of hardness, and so.
there is no fixed description of an object
a spatial point is an argument place
infinite space is the argument
perceptual events have a natural description a natural description is
non-reflective(what you might call a given description)
non-natural descriptions are explanations of natural phenomena
an object can be described naturally or non-naturally
all well formed descriptions are true
an object can be variously described
(the idea of 'object' is itself a description - a base description that all
other descriptions refer to -
the idea itself is finally without content
we describe it to give it content -
not because it has content but because we need it to have content so as it
manipulate it)
2.014. Objects contain the possibilities of all situations.
objects contain nothing
possibilities are given
situations arise - i.e. - descriptions are made
descriptions reflect time
time is not still
time means nothing
2.0141. The possibility of its occurring in states of affairs is the form of an object.
the occurrence of an object is its perception
the possibility of an object is outside of it
it's possibility is its conception and use
the form of an object is its natural history
it's natural history is what is said of it
or
the form of an object is always a mistake
a necessary starting point of action
it is never true but is regarded as so
here is the origin of exhilaration and also dread
2.02. Objects are simple.
simple or complex is a matter of regard
an object may be regarded as simple
(this is a pragmatic decision
it is always ontologically short sighted
to say something is simple is to choose not to think about it further
here is the origin of clarity and distinctness
it is also the first step of withdrawal from the world)
2.0201. Every statement about complexes can be resolved into a statement about
their constituents and into the propositions that describe complexes completely.
complexity is a view of - i.e. an object
it is a way of knowing
a possible way of seeing
the decision to resolve a statement about a complex into its constituents
is to explore the complex - to look into it
if an entity (i.e. a complex) is held to be closed exploration stops
this can only be for a purpose of use (or lack of interest)
(there is no epistemological basis to closing down exploration)
and any proposition (describing such an entity) is held to be closed to view
(even given this view completion does suggest itself
completion has more to do with the wish that consciousness did not exist
that the world is object without question
such a world cannot be known therefore it makes no sense
completion is about the end of desire - not the nature of the world)
if an entity (i.e. a complex) is regarded as open - so too its description
here there is no resolution
any proposition regarding it is held to be open to review
(how you hold a proposition is a decision about the world)
2.021 Objects make up the substance of the world that is why they cannot be
composite.
if so - the substance of the world cannot be composite - whence objects?
objects exist in the outside of the world (the inside is consciousness)
substance is that which is inside and out
substance per se is unknowable
the world is two dimensional
the point of unity (the world itself) cannot be seen
2.0211. If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had sense would
depend on whether another proposition is true.
a proposition asserts
it is an assertion of what is the case or what is not the case or what could be
the case
a proposition invites assent or dissent
if a proposition can be assented to it has sense
if a proposition can be dissented from it has sense
sensibility is a question of intelligibility
2.0212. In that case we could not sketch any picture of the world.
if there was no substance there would be no assertion
if no proposition - no proposition could be dependent on another
2.022. It is obvious that an imagined world, however different it may be
from the real one, must have something - a form - in common with it.
imagination is consciousness over reaching known reality
imagination is creativity and the ground of creativity
what is real is the starting point for the imagination
whatever is created is created from - the given reality is contained in any
imagined reality
2.023. Objects are what constitutes this unalterable form.
consciousness objectifies
2.0231.The substance of the world can only determine a form, and not any material
properties. For it is only by means of propositions that material properties are
represented - only by the configuration of objects that they are produced.
forms of knowing are given in consciousness
the material world is outside of consciousness
(consciousness is the inside of the world)
propositions represent consciousness in the world
the external world - the surface of the world exists in another dimension to
consciousness
its properties are reflected in consciousness
it is only known given consciousness
(consciousness impacts on the material world
the material world impacts on consciousness
this is a way of describing the dynamic of the unity)
2.0232. In a manner of speaking objects are colourless.
objectification is a function of consciousness
functions are colourless
colour is a property of the outside world
an object is a unity
it can be analyzed as colourless or colourful
2.00233. If two objects have the same logical form, the only distinction
between them, apart from their external properties, is that they are different.
their difference is a function of space / time position (only if this is
not regarded as an external property - if it is they are so distinguished)
difference is contingency
the world distinguishes itself
2.02331. Either a thing has properties that nothing else has, in which case we can
immediately use a description to distinguish it from the others and refer to it;
or, on the other hand, there are several things that have the whole set of properties in common, in which case it is quite impossible to indicate one of them.
For if there is nothing to distinguish a thing, I cannot distinguish it,
since otherwise it would be distinguished after all.
distinction is a question of knowledge
(separate entities are distinguished by spatial position this at least)
what I know of a thing is what distinguishes it
if it cannot be distinguished - this is a property of me - not the thing
distinction is separateness
if there is no separation there are no things
if things are separate they are distinguished
2.024. Substance is what subsists independently of what is the case.
what is independent of what is the case is what is not known
substance is the unknown
2.025. It is form and content.
form and content are categories of knowledge
what is beyond knowledge is unknown
2.0251. Space, time and colour (being coloured) are forms of objects.
objects are expressed in space and time
thought is expressed in space and time
space and time are expressions of the world
the world here - in itself so to speak - is unknown
the world (again so to speak) is known through its expressions
colour is a point of unity of mind and matter
the unity of the world cannot be seen
colour is a sign
2.026. There must be objects if the world is to have an unaltered form.
there is no necessity to objects
objects could well not exist
the world would not thus cease to exist
the world is necessary
(necessity is without description)
if the world has an unalterable form we could never know what this is
to imagine such is to suggest the unknown is known
this is the origin of idolatry
(the absence of knowledge beyond consciousness is unalterable)
consciousness is not necessary
2.027 Objects, the unalterable, and the subsistent are one in the same.
objects are presentations to consciousness
consciousness objectifies
(there is no basis to appearance - that is there is nothing that appearance is
that does not appear
beyond appearance - beyond phenomena is what does not appear - is noumena
noumena is the unknown
thought is action that is not visible
there is no basis to thought - that is there is nothing that thought is that is visible)
the idea of unalterability is either the idea to form a basis for argument
that is to stand as premise or it is the wish for the end of desire which is
no more than fear of consciousness itself
the surface is guileless
consciousness reflects the surface
nothing subsists
you can decide to view everything as being indistinguishable
if so everything is unknown
here is the axis of joy and despair
(the question then is either embrace or shed)
2.0271. Objects are what is unalterable and subsistent; their configuration is
what is changing and unstable
the object is neither unalterable or unstable
consciousness objectifies and then reflects
consciousness is petulant
here is the source of innocence (playfulness) and wickedness
the descriptive possibilities of anything are either /or
this shows the space of consciousness in any description
this is the space of possibility
this space is never exhausted
the logic of either / or is applicable to any description of an object
that is it is not a fixed analysis - rather a tool of analysis
a means of setting up ground for thought
logic is not about the nature of things
logic is a set of tools
tools are tools if they fit the task
this suggests the world corresponds to these tools
that the world is so configured
this is where the idea of form comes from - the use of logic
natural history is comforting
it is not necessary
and you cannot predict the next fact
2.0272. The configuration of objects produces states of affairs.
the object as such is what it is
any configuration is a conceptualization
that is it is meant either as an explanation or as an artistic representation
the configuration of objects is at the phenomenal (as distinct from the
conceptual) level a question of relation
the relations of objects is like a board game - it is at the simplest level
a question of placement and position
we then describe from various (different) points of view
this is always a matter of physicality and ideality
where you are - and the metaphysics you bring to place
objects produce nothing beyond themselves
a state of affairs is a conception
2.03. In a state of affairs objects fit into one another like the links
of a chain.
in a relational conception anything can be related to anything
if the object of conception is more than one - the conception is relational
2.031 In a state of affairs objects stand in a determinate relation to one
another.
relational conceptions determine however there are no fixed relations
things can be conceived in any number of ways
relations - kinds of relations can be created
how things are related depends on what questions are asked
the reason for seeing things in any particular way is not necessarily clear
the reason for anything at all is the point of all our endeavours
it is the eternal focus
the fact of not-knowing is the driving force - the conatus aware
not-knowing is the reason for conscious life
it is the source of anxiety
2.032. The determinate way in which objects are connected in a state of affairs
is the structure of the state of affairs.
how objects are conceived is a state of affairs
the structure of a state of affairs is a theory of conception
that is a reflection on the original conception
there is theoretically no end to reflection on reflection
if a state of affairs is determinate - its determination is never reached
structure is ephemeral
2.033. Form is the possibility of structure.
the possibility of thought (conception) is not knowable
(here is the true zest of life)
the conception of structure is the conception of how a thing stands
the limit of a thing is defined by its structure - i.e. a different structure a different thing
a different thing has a different conception
form is an open concept
structure is a picture of form
2.034. The structure of a fact consists of the structures of states of affairs.
the structure of a fact is internal logic - why it is what it is and not another
fact
the structure of states of affairs is external logic - the logic of relations -
this has no bearing on the (internal) nature of individual things
2.04. The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.
therefore the world is the state of affairs
therefore the world is one state
the concept of one here cannot be defined
it cannot be a closed concept unless there is something outside the world
if one is an open concept - there is nothing outside of the world
and one here (i.e. the world) is by definition without definition
a totality if closed is such that it has a limited number of members
(such a world is fixed)
a totality if open has an unlimited number of members
such a concept can never be stated
(such a world is not fixed)
we can speak here only of what is not known
as such it is without logical characterization
if so we should give up speaking of the world
2.05. The totality of existing states of affairs also determines which
states of affairs do not exist.
a totality does not entail non-existence
an existing state of affairs does not determine what does not exist
x may exist or not exist
not x is the boundary of x
2.06.The existence and non-existence of states of affairs is a reality.
(We also call the existence of states of affairs a positive fact, and their
non-existence a negative fact.)
consciousness always reaches beyond the given
logical possibility is a deeper understanding than the factual world
(the deeper - or wider you go in thinking - the less substance there is in the
world
finally you see there is no substance)
the existence of states of affairs is only the necessity (natural) of focus
(the entity is so structured)
reflection - a step back from the immediate - transforms the world to idea
thought is sublime
the purity of touch of sense is exquisite
positive skepticism is to see the absence of knowledge as the ground of being
where you begin and end
negative skepticism is the view that the illusion of knowledge should be true
it is metaphysical denial - an understandable lack of nerve
(for all intents and purposes illusion is necessary for human survival)
you don't have to abandon everything to live in truth and dignity
it is rather the understanding behind the understanding
freedom is at the heart of not-knowing
2.061. States of affairs are independent of each other.
this is a question of conception
when we conceive we determine what is to be included and what is not
(you can think in such a way that all states of affairs are expressions
instances of the one state of affairs - therefore there is no independence)
focus is always where we start
perception is objective (in that it determines what is in and what is not)
reflection - conception is without this necessity
its propensity is the lack of focus
it moves to the point of no focus
what I am saying here is about pure thought
it is nevertheless true of very practical thinking
the absence of knowing demands that we explore
dilemmas initially set limits to thinking
problems can require the isolation of one matter from another
this is not to do with the nature of things -
rather it is about the nature of action
2.062. From the existence or non-existence of one state of affairs it is
impossible to infer the existence or non-existence of another.
if so science is impossible or it is without any logical foundation - and thus
is mythology
mythology is a form of necessary illusion
knowledge is the necessary illusion
(the world is not altered)
2.063. The sum total of reality is the world.
reality is not a quantity
2.1. We picture facts to ourselves.
we may so describe consciousness
such is an attempt to give explanation to thought
it is a reflection on the fact
given that we don't know -
really any sensible metaphor will function as well as the next
picturing has the advantage of being childlike
the focus of consciousness captures what is before it
the metaphor is simple and straightforward
in reality though a picture is always outside of consciousness
facts are definitions
decisions in logical space
what is there to picture?
logical space is blank without feature
the drawing of boundaries is ideal
it has no imprint
a picture theory of consciousness conceals the truth
2.11. A picture resents a situation in logical space, the existence and
non-existence of states of affairs.
a picture presents a situation in logical space -
a picture is a presentation
in presenting a situation in logical space
it is a picture presenting a picture (a situation)
in a picture (logical space)
so
a picture presents a picture which presents a picture
what we are talking about here is reflection
reflection of reflection of reflection
this is consciousness
this is how consciousness works
reflection on reflection on reflection
logical space -
is the space of unity
the point of contact between the inner and the outer dimensions
logical space as the space of unity is the space of both dimensions
from the point of view as it were of unity
logical space is necessarily a construction
but nevertheless we regard it as reality
a reality that exists but must be made in order to be known
consciousness posits logical space and then recognizes it as the reality
it participates in
consciousness that is defers to its construction
logical space thus reflects both inner and outer dimensions
it is the resolution of inner and outer
(it is known only from the inside - exists only given that reality is two
dimensional and therefore is a unity
we can well imagine reality as one dimensional - there is no question of unity
and therefore in a world without consciousness - no space of unity - no logical space)
a picture presents a situation in logical space
a picture presents a picture
the existence and non-existence of states of affairs
this is just to say logical space is the space of possibility
2.12. A picture is a model of reality.
a picture is a picture
actually the external reality - the surface reality is reflected in consciousness
and this reflection can then be subject to further reflection
the relationship is two way
consciousness reflects out to the (external) physical world
reality as such is never pictured
we never step out of it to picture it
we are in it
it reflects - and more than this we are its reflections
reflections that reflect
2.13. In a picture objects have the elements of the picture corresponding to them.
in a reflection of an object the object is reflected
2.131. In a picture the elements of the picture are the representatives of
objects
a reflection reflects what is reflected
a reflection in this context is an inside view of an outside event
(it can also be an inside view of an inside event)
why do we say a picture represents?
that is why don't we say the landscape represents the picture?
what it is about is that consciousness is in the world
that which is outside of consciousness - the physical world
is the object of consciousness
the object is surface - the surface is revealed
the subject (consciousness) is inside - the inside is not revealed
the inside is a reflection of - the outside
we step back and say one represents the other
because one is a reflection of the other
in fact both are dimensions - and thus finally - reflections of a unity
consciousness and the physical world thus both represent a unity
that which is reflected is only known in terms of its reflection
beyond reflection there is no knowledge
representation is thus a way of characterizing the relationship between
consciousness and its object - the external (physical) surface
it is thus a reflection on this relationship
a way of seeing it
it could also be put that a picture only represents if it is made to
that is the representation is not a characteristic of the picture rather of the viewer
it is thus a view of the picture that the picture represents
representation as such has nothing to do with the picture
it is a way of seeing the world - a way of relating things
one could though take another view and say there is no representation
it is just the one reality that has two dimensions
i.e. - the inside of a box does not represent the outside of a box
and the outside of the box is not a representation of the inside
representation does not come into the picture
this view has the advantage of elegance
2.14.What constitutes a picture is that its elements are related to one another
in a determinate way.
here you could well say that what constitutes the world is that its elements
are related in a determinate way
if so how would you then distinguish a picture from the world?
one would think this necessary for a picture to be a picture
2.141. A picture is a fact.
what is not a fact?
if a fact is to have any logical significance it must be distinguished from what
it is not?
either that or we are dealing with a form of speech
'it is a fact that it is Tuesday at 5.07 p.m.'
is what kind of a statement?
it is an assertion that asserts that what is asserted is true
it is a statement within the statement
the statement within refers to the statement without
it is thus self-serving
statements of this kind should be regarded as rhetorical rather than logical
to say a picture is a fact is really advertising - albeit of the no frills variety
2.15. The fact that the elements of a picture are related to one another
in a determinate way represents that things are related to one another in the same way.
Let us call this connection of its elements the structure of the picture, and
let us call the possibility of this structure the pictorial form of the picture.
a picture represents - it does not determine how the world is
the picture may function let us say on a veridical level - but be of no use on
an empirical theoretical level - i.e. that is of no value to science
here it is a question of the use of the picture - as to whether it represents
how things are
how things are will be represented conceptually
but again the representation - the conceptual picture is representative -
relative to use
the world is conceived differently - different conceptions reflect different needs
and differing metaphysical histories
conceptualizations (pictures) are tools for dealing with the world
let us say every concept represents
the problem of knowledge is not the problem of representation
the question is how to understand that an infinity of different pictures
can represent the one state of affairs
either there is in an infinity of falsehood and one picture applies or things
are not related in a determinate manner
and the possibility of different picture represents this - dare I say - fact
the possibility of a thing's structure - is really the possibility of
structuring - a form of picturing
which does not of course exhaust the possibilities of representation
the fact of it is that the object of knowledge is the unknown
the unknown is silent - it does not determine
the infinite possibility of representation is only possible given that the
object of consciousness - that which is outside of itself - is unknown
the unknown is silent - it does not determine - therefore anything is possible
rather consciousness' capacity to reflect and reflect on its reflection is
the source of all representation
2.151. Pictorial form is the possibility that things are related to one another
in the same way as the elements of a picture.
yes it is possible that things are related to one another in the same way as
the elements of picture
this is all that can be asserted
2.1511. That is how a picture is attached to reality; it reaches right out to it.
consciousness does indeed have as its primary object that which is outside of
itself
it makes no sense really to speak of the inside being attached to the outside
the inside can affect the outside - can impose itself - consciousness can
and does transform the physical world - alter its elements - configure them -
if you like
this is a reaching out I suppose
this though is always based on the outside's reflection on the inside
this is the reaching in
2.1512. It is laid against reality like a measure.
the picture is reality reflected
this is just what happens in the natural world (given conscious animals)
it is unremarkable
unless you think the rain falling the wind blowing and the sun shinning is
extraordinary
yes we have concepts of measurement
but again - reality is not a quantity
or to say that it is - leaves too much out
2.15121. Only the end points of the graduating lines actually touch the object
that is to be measured.
the measurement of the object by the picture is a relationship between the
picture and the object
the act of measurement is an act of consciousness - it is the relating
of the picture to the object in a certain way
this is the making of a relational picture
the relata are the object and the original picture
do we want to say that the relating of the concept (picture) to object is
picturing the picture in a relation (another picture)?
the point is pictures contain pictures
here there are pictures of objects and pictures of the relationship of pictures
to objects
a picture does not touch the object pictured it reflects it
the object reflected is held to be complete within its conception
but this is to say what is conceived is always an object (and beyond this the relations
of objects)
we understand that that which is objectified is never known
this is clear given the possibility (and actuality) of diverse conceptions of
the object
picturing finally tells us nothing of the nature of the thing pictured
it is about absorbing details into the bigger picture
and the bigger picture is never the big picture
(the big picture is actually blank)
2.1513. So a picture conceived in this way, also includes the pictorial
relationship, which makes it into the picture.
this is not so
the picture as such has no necessary relationship to the object pictured
what makes a picture of x - a picture of x?
a decision to relate the two
in the natural course of things this is done without thinking
in the case of non-veridical (natural) conceptions it is obvious that bridging
conceptions are made
the point is the pictorial relationship is separate from the original picture
it is another matter - a conception of picture and object
2.1514. The pictorial relationship consists of the correlations of the
picture's elements with things.
this is not a naive matter
not all of a picture's elements will be obvious to the naked eye
not all of the object's possibilities will be included in the picture
the pictorial relationship will therefore not be determinate
every picture is unfinished
2.1515. The correlations are, as it were, the feelers of the picture's elements,
with which the picture touches reality.
yes the picture is always uncertain
2.16. If a fact is to be a picture, it must have something in common with what it
depicts.
this is a minimal view of facts
what if a fact didn't have something in common with what it depicts?
then it wouldn't depict what it depicts -
therefore it would be a fact that is not a fact
(a most interesting fact)
so any fact is a picture?
if it is a fact
the only way out of this is to say there are non-depicting facts
that facts are something other than pictures?
2.161. There must be something identical in a picture and what it depicts, to
enable the one to be a picture after all.
this something is what?
is it an axiom?
x' is identical to x?
that is a conception of identity
interposed between picture and object
a conception of logical identity
identity by the way is just short sightedness
nevertheless very useful -
and indeed necessary (in a contingent sense)
so
we employ identity relations to pictures and their objects
for otherwise they would not be pictures of
identity is something other than a picture placed against an object
2.17. What a picture must have common with reality, in order to be able to
depict it - correctly or incorrectly - in the way it does, is its pictorial form.
this suggests there is something in the picture which makes it a picture of
this is how we tend to think of pictures
but it is only after the connection has been made
and the connection is the conception of relation
this again is independent of the picture and the object
2.171. A picture can depict any reality whose form it has.
A spatial picture can depict anything spatial, a coloured one anything
coloured, etc.
the metaphor of picture - or indeed just the idea of picture is no substitute for
consciousness - if this is the idea -
pictures are observed - they are out there
this will not do as a theory of mind
mind is not out there - a public theory of mind is not clever it is absurd
consciousness cannot be characterized empirically
consciousness is the internal dimension of persons
it can only be characterized by what it does - and that is reflect
if indeed we have knowledge of the mind it is reflective knowledge
the function of mind is reflection
reflection is internal - it is non-empirical
space and colour are features of the surface
of the external world
our conceptions - our reflections recognize these attributes
this is not to say my reflection is coloured
or my reflection is spatial
recognition is an act without content
it is what is recognized that has content
2.172. A picture cannot, however, depict its pictorial form: it displays it.
its pictorial form - its relation to the object is not depicted or displayed
the relation is not in the picture
the relation is outside the picture outside the object
what the picture displays is a question for the observer
what it depicts is a question for the observer
it is the observer who depicts what is displayed
the picture itself - in itself is unknown
2.173. A picture represents its subject from a position outside of it. (Its standpoint is representational form). That is why a picture represents its
subject correctly or incorrectly.
the fact that a picture is outside of its subject - does not bear on its
correctness or not
a picture is always correct - it is just a question of what it is a picture of
2.174. A picture cannot, however, place itself outside its representational form.
the representational form is outside the picture
the picture is not a self - it does not place
2.18. What any picture, of whatever form, must have in common with reality,
in order to be able to depict it - correctly or incorrectly - in any way at all,
is logical form, i.e. the form of reality.
the outside dimension (of reality) is reflected in the inside dimension
(of reality)
this is not a must have - it is just the way it happens
2.181. A picture whose pictorial form is logical is called a logical picture.
a statement of logic defines possibility - that is logical space
2.182. Every picture is at the same time a logical one. (On the other hand,
not every picture is, for example, a spatial one)
every picture may be pictured logically - that is as a statement of what is
possible
however the same picture may just be seen as a statement of what is
2.19. Logical pictures can depict the world.
logical pictures state what is possible - that is express possibility
the world can be so regarded - as what is possible - as possibility
such a view determines the world as free of determination
2.2. A picture has logico-pictorial form in common with what it depicts.
logic is substanceless it asserts possibility
a logical picture has nothing in it
2.201. A picture depicts reality by representing a possibility of existence and
non-existence of states of affairs.
there is nothing depicted in a statement of possibility
2.202. A picture represents a possible situation in logical space.
a picture can be regarded in this way
but if so the picture is merely the stepping stone for the consideration of possibility
again a picture represents nothing unless it is held to be in a relation of representation
representation is an idea of relation
logical space is blank
2.203. A picture contains the possibility of the situation that it represents.
a picture per se represents what is
possibility cannot be represented it can only be stated
2.21. A picture agrees with reality or it fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true or
false.
reality is
it doesn't agree or disagree
there is nothing for it to agree or disagree with
a picture is a focus within
it is a feature that is held to represent another feature
reality is silent
it does not say yea or nay
the status of relationships is a matter for those in relationships
you have the picture you have the object
the relation is a third party affair
a decision
2.22. What a picture represents it represents independently of its truth or
falsity, by means of its pictorial form.
truth is a separate consideration to representation
the issue of truth is one that must be defined on each occasion
that is what is to count here as truth?
e.g. naive correspondence or indeed its absence
2.221. What a picture represents is its sense.
a picture does not represent itself
a picture represents something else
a picture is a form - and so long as it is this - it has sense
a picture that is not a picture is something that makes no sense
the sense of a thing is its logical form
a picture does not represent sense - a picture has sense
recognition of logical form is sensibility
the world is sensible
the question of sensibility arises in language
it is a statement that is sensible or not
a grammatically well formed statement is sensible
2.222. The agreement or disagreement of its sense with reality constitutes its
truth or falsity.
a picture if it is a picture makes sense as a picture
its agreement or disagreement with reality is matter of correct placement
2.223. In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it
with reality.
in order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must decide where to put it
2.224. It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or
false.
truth is only one possibility of the significance of a picture - it is the least important
2.225. There are no pictures that are true a priori.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
(a) true a priori
the conditions of experience are prior to it in a logical sense
this is to think outside of experience about experience
therefore any statement of these conditions has a priori status
if however you are thinking within experience and not outside it
any theory about experience emerges from within it
here there is no a priori
a priori is thus a question of thought positions - outside or in?
it is a matter of meta place - perspective
(we adopt positions only because there is no position)
(b) a logical picture of facts is a thought
a logical picture of facts is a theory of thought
thought can only be addressed by thought
that is we can only look at it from the inside - in thought
pictures within pictures
thought outside its picturing is an unknown
so thought in relation to the non-conscious world?
a thought reflects
a thought is reflection
a reflection of thought is a fact?
yes
if it is understood that 'fact' here is a theory of what is reflected
thought is reflection -
this tells us only that thought is one element of a relation - that reflected -
the other element - that which is reflected (non-thought)
I don't think anymore can really be said here
mind and matter
