42. We might call the recital of
the rules on its own a criterion of understanding, or alternatively tests of
use on their own. Or we might regard the recital of the rules as a symptom of
the man’s being able to do something other than recite the rules.
To understand = to let a
proposition work on one.
When one remembers the meaning of
a word, the remembering is not the mental process that one imagines at first
sight.
The psychological process of
understanding is in the same case as the arithmetical object Three.
reciting rules as a criterion of
understanding?
first off what we have here in
the guise of rules – is proposals
the idea of a rule is the idea of
an proposition that has authority
the only authority – logically
speaking is authorship –
and the authorship of a
proposition is logically irrelevant –
apart from authorship – any claim
to authority is rhetorical
being able to recite rules – is
being able to mouth rhetoric
to understand = letting a
proposition work on one?
the proposition is the
understanding –
one proposes the understanding
remembering the meaning of a word
– a mental process?
when I remember the meaning of a
word – I propose the meaning – either to myself or others
remembering is a propositional act –
memory is a proposal
just as ‘explaining’ the act in
terms of a ‘mental process’ –
is to propose – ‘mental process’ –
and with this will come
whatever propositional constructs
–
it is said to involve
regardless of what we are talking
about – the world that we operate in –
is plainly and simply – propositional
what exists is what is proposed
‘The psychological process of
understanding is in the same case as the arithmetical object Three. The word
“process” in the one case, and the word ‘object” in the other produce a false
grammatical attitude to the word.”
there is no false grammatical
attitude –
what you have with ‘process’ and
‘object’ – is ways of accounting for what is proposed
proposals – to account for – to
underwrite – what has been proposed – in this case – ‘understanding’ and ‘3’ –
if these ways have currency –
they have assent
it’s a question of history – of
usage – as to just how these terms – these proposals – (‘process’ and ‘object’) have emerged
and gained currency –
but that is philosophical
archaeology – and I’ll leave that to the French –
and in any case all that
philosophical archaeology delivers is more proposals regarding proposals
however it must be said that any
proposal regarding a proposal
creates new propositional possibilities
new ways of seeing – new ways of
dealing – new ways of saying
nevertheless – logically speaking
– all that we have – is the proposition
–
there is nothing else
© greg t. charlton. 2014
