Abstract
This paper forges links between early analytic philosophy and the posits of semiotics. I show that there are some striking and potentially quite important, but perhaps unrecognized, connections between three key concepts in Wittgenstein’s middle and later philosophy, namely, complex (Philosophical Grammar), rule-following (Philosophical Investigations), and language games (Philosophical Investigations). This reveals the existence of a conceptual continuity between Wittgenstein’s “early” and “later” philosophy that can be applied to the analysis of the iterability of representation in computer-generated images. Methodologically, this paper clarifies to at least some degree, the nature, progress and promise of an approach to doing philosophy and semiotics from a modally modest perspective that sees in the intellectual products of humanities, and not in unreflective empiricism, the future of scientific development. This hybrid, non-reductionist approach shows, among other things, that semiotic processes are encoded by specific types of complexes in computer-generated images that display iterability in time and space.
References
Ammereller, Erich. 2004. Puzzles around rule-following: PI 185–242. In Erich Ammereller & Eugen Fisher (eds.), Wittgenstein at work: Method in the Philosophical investigations, 127–146. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203569443Search in Google Scholar
Ammereller, Erich & Eugen Fisher. 2004. Wittgenstein at work: Method in the philosophical investigations. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203569443Search in Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1959. An introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. New York: Harper.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon & P. M. S. Hacker. 1980a. An analytical commentary on Wittgenstein’s philosophical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon & P. M. S. Hacker. 1980b. Wittgenstein, meaning and understanding: Essays on the philosophical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon & P. M. S. Hacker. 1985. Wittgenstein: Rules, grammar and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Gordon & P. M. S. Hacker. 2009. Wittgenstein: Rules, grammar and necessity essays and exegesis of §§185–242 (An analytical commentary on the Philosophical Investigations 2). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444315691Search in Google Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, Laura A. & Gordon D. Logan. 1997. The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2519.Search in Google Scholar
Conant, James. 1989. Must we show what we cannot say? In Richard Fleming & Michael Payne (eds.), The senses of Stanley Cavell, 242–283. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2015. Preface: Umberto Eco and semiotics: An enduring legacy. Semiotica 206(1/4). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0025.Search in Google Scholar
Diamond, Cora. 1991. Throwing away the ladder: How to read the Tractatus. In The realistic spirit, 179–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5797.003.0011Search in Google Scholar
Dreben, Burton & Juliet Floyd (trans.). 2011. Frege-Wittgenstein correspondence. In Enzo De Pellegrin (ed.), Interactive Wittgenstein: Essays in memory of Georg Henrik von Wright, 15–74. London & New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9909-0_2Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search in Google Scholar
Eder, Jens & Charlotte Klonk. 2017. Image operations: Visual media and political conflict. Manchester: Manchester University Press.10.7228/manchester/9781526107213.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Elsaesser, Thomas. 2014. A frame for the no longer visible. Thomas Elsaesser in conversation with Alexander Alberro. e-flux 59. http://e-flux.com/journal/59/61111/farocki-a-frame-forthe-no-longer-visible-thomas-elsaesser-in-conversation-with-alexanderalberro/ (accessed 20 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Engelmann, Paul. 1999. A memoir. In F. A. Flowers III (ed.), Portraits of Wittgenstein, vol. 2, 5–64. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Search in Google Scholar
Erbacher, Christian. 2015. Editionspraxis, Philosophie und Zivilisationskritik: Die Geschichte von Wittgensteins Vermischten Bemerkungen. Wittgenstein-Studien 6(1). 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/witt-2015-0109.Search in Google Scholar
Farocki, Harun. 2004. Phantom images. Public 29. 12–22.Search in Google Scholar
Flusser, Vilém. 2011. Into the universe of technical images. Nancy Ann Roth (trans.). Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.10.5749/minnesota/9780816670208.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert. 1976. Wittgenstein. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun & Dan Zahavi. 2008. The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203086599Search in Google Scholar
Gallese, Vittorio & George Lakoff. 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22(3). 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.Search in Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1976. Saying and showing in Wittgenstein and Frege. Acta Philosophica Fennica 28. 54–70.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, RaymondJr. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805844Search in Google Scholar
Glock, Hans Johann. 1996. A Wittgenstein dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631185376.1996.xSearch in Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. 1994. The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a framework. Cognition 52. 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90065-5.Search in Google Scholar
Good, Justin. 2006. Wittgenstein and the theory of perception. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1972. Seven strictures on similarity. In Problems and projects, 437–447. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 1972. Insight and illusion. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 1990. Wittgenstein: Meaning and mind (An analytical commentary on the Philosophical Investigations 3). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 1996. Wittgenstein: Meaning and mind (An analytical commentary on the Philosophical Investigations 4). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 2001. Wittgenstein: Connections and controversies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019924569X.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 2012. Wittgenstein on grammar, theses and dogmatism. Philosophical Investigations 35. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2011.01460.x.Search in Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1995. Mind embodied and embedded. In Y. Houng & J. Ho (eds.), Mind and cognition, 207–237. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Search in Google Scholar
Hillier, Bill. 2014. Spatial analysis and cultural information: The need for theory as well as method in space syntax analysis. In Eleftheria Paliou, Undine Lieberwirth & Silvia Polla (eds.), Spatial analysis and social spaces: Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of prehistoric and historic built elements, 19–47. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110266436.19Search in Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 2011. The crash of the philosophy of the Tractatus: The testimony of Wittgenstein’s Notebooks in October 1929. In Enzo De Pellegrin (ed.), Interactive Wittgenstein: Essays in honor of Georg Henrik von Wright, 153–170. London & New York: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4020-9909-0_5Search in Google Scholar
Hintikka, Merrill & Jaakko Hintikka. 1986. Investigating Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2002. The central dogma: A joke that became real. Semiotica 138(1/4). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2002.004.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2014. The semiome: From genetic to semiotic scaffolding. Semiotica 198(1/4). 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0099.Search in Google Scholar
Horst, Steven. 2007. Beyond reduction: Philosophy of mind and post-reductionist philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195317114.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. 2006. Wittgenstein. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9780470776643Search in Google Scholar
Kirsh, David. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 73. 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-u.Search in Google Scholar
Kirsh, David & Paul Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18. 513–549. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1.Search in Google Scholar
Kittler, Friedrich A. 1999. Gramophone, film, typewriter. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young & Michael Wutz (trans.). Stanford: CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kuusela, Oskari & Marie McGinn (eds.). 2011. Introduction. In The Oxford handbook of Wittgenstein, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199287505.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lawn, Chris. 2004. Wittgenstein and Gadamer: Towards a post-analytic philosophy of language. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Lenz, Friedrich. 2003. Introduction. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person, vii–xiv. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.112.02lenSearch in Google Scholar
Lobina, David J. 2017. Recursion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198785156.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Juri. 2005 [1984]. On the semiosphere. Wilma Clark (trans.). Semiotica 33(1/4). 205–229. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2005.33.1.09.Search in Google Scholar
Machery, Edouard. 2017. Philosophy within its proper bounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198807520.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
McGuinness, Brian. 1988. Wittgenstein: A life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Moore, George Edward. 2016. Wittgenstein lectures, Cambridge 1930–1933: From the notes of G. E. Moore. David G. Stern, Brian Rogers & Gabriel Citron (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nadin, Mihai. 2012. Reassessing the foundations of semiotics: Preliminaries. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems 2(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsss.2012010101.Search in Google Scholar
Noordhof, Paul. 2008. Expressive perception as projective imagining. Mind & Language 23(3). 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00346.x.Search in Google Scholar
Pears, David. 1987. The false prison, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198247702.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pichler, Alois. 1992. Wittgenstein’s later manuscripts: Some remarks on style and writing. In Paul Henry & Arild Utaker (eds.), Wittgenstein and contemporary theories of language: Papers read at the French-Norwegian seminar in Skjolden, 23–26 May 1992, 219–257. Bergen: Wittgensteinarkivet ved Universitetet i Bergen.Search in Google Scholar
Queiroz, João & Floyd Merrell. 2006. Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning. Sign Systems Studies 34(1). 37–65. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2006.34.1.02.Search in Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2017. Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Reyes, Everardo & Göran Sonesson. 2019. New approaches to plastic language: Prolegomena to a computer-aided approach to pictorial semiotics. Semiotica 230(1/4). 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0106.Search in Google Scholar
Steels, Luc & Martin Loetzsch. 2009. Perspective alignment in spatial language. In Kenny R. Coventry, Thora Tenbrik & John Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 70–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019a. A semiosic translation of the term “Bild” in both the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the Philosophical Investigations. Semiotica 227(1/4). 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0137.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019b. A semiosic translation of Paul Celan’s Schwarze Flocken and Weggebeizt. Semiotica 231(1/4). 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0102.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2020. Translating Wittgenstein: A semiotic translation of the Tractatus. Semiotica 233(1/4). 91–123. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0111.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio, forthcoming. 2021. Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors. Linguistics Vanguard. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0083.Search in Google Scholar
Vapnik, V. N. 1995. The nature of statistical learning theory. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0Search in Google Scholar
Watson, Matthew E., Martin J. Pickering & Holly P. Branigan. 2009. Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In Kenny R. Coventry, Thora Tenbrik & John Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 8–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974. Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore. Georg H. von Wright (ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984 [1922]. Werkausgabe, Band 1: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/Tagebücher 1914–1916 /Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984. Werkausgabe, Band 3: Philosophische Grammatik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984b. Werkausgabe, Band 5: Das Blaue Buch [The Blue Book]/ Eine Philosophische Betrachtung (Das Braune Buch [The Brown Book]). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2005. The Big Typescript TS 213. C. Grant Luckhardt & Maximilian A. E. Aue (eds. & trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470752906Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2008. Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and documents 1911–1951. B. McGuinness (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
