[Wittrs] When Meaning Isn't Use

[WittrFeed]

To participate in the discussion, go here:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&th=3960

... it wasn't a metaphor. I was only giving one of three possible
answers. If one said that there were situations in which "meaning
wasn't use," it would seem to posit a situation where use resulted in
no meaning, where it resulted in only one meaning (ever), or where it
resulted in the "wrong" meaning. As to what would qualify, it would
depend upon what the person had in mind for the ideas.

It also is still possible for the wording in those passages to not be
ideal. Again, you'd have to square it with everything else said and
would have to know something about the way Wittgenstein "was." He
frequently called his own stuff rubbish months after writing it. He
had peculiar editing practices (sometimes cutting and pasting,
literally, not as we in the computer age do). The stuff we are talking
about is written in the 3rd quarter (around 36 if my memory serves).
He was always misunderstood, both in print and in person. And he
frequently had in mind more than one sense of a word when using it --
the sign of both a incredibly brilliant man and someone who is bound
to mislead you with any expressed thought.

So my point is not to dwell on any clause or strip of language in PI
as though it is lawyerly. It isn't what he meant by that little
fragment that matters. What matters is, once you have touched his
ideas, how do they work. And so, if someone put forth, as an idea,
that "in some cases meaning isn't use," we would want to know how this
idea could POSSIBLY work. What it could possibly say. And like I said,
possibilities might be:

1. gibberish
2. rigid designators
3. polysemy, idiom?

Keep in mind that none of these are acceptable to me. I personally
don't believe one can find any situation where meaning isn't use.

To participate in the discussion, go here:
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=rview&th=3960