52. “There must be some sort of law for reading the chart. – Otherwise how would you know how the table was to be used?” It is part of human nature
to understand pointing with the finger they in the way we do.
The chart does not compel me to use it always in the same way.
there is no ‘law’ here –
there will be conventional practice – in a context – and perhaps
different conventions in different contexts
reading a chart may well be like playing a game –
and in that sense – yes you play according to the rules – if you want to
play the game
the ‘rules’ – here though will be no more than a statement of
conventional practice –
any so called rules – any directions for practice – will of course
be open to question – open to
doubt –
hence – the chart can be read in other ways
all we are dealing with here is proposals –
the chart is a proposal –
and any ‘reading’ of the chart – is a proposal
‘otherwise how would you know
how the table is to be used?’
there is no definite knowledge here – or for that matter elsewhere –
what you know – or what you can learn is propositional practice –
and you do that by engaging in that practice –
as for it being part of human nature to understand pointing with the
finger the way we do
well – a fine proposal –
‘human nature’ – here – is really just short hand for saying –
‘this is what I think is the case – and everyone must agree’ –
basically an authoritarian proposal –
that really has nothing behind it –
rhetoric – in other words
© greg t. charlton. 2014.
