observations of the Tractatus
1. On old observation rebooted: It might be better, when thinking about the TLP, to talk not in terms of a “picture theory” but of a “picture-pattern theory”, for the correspondence posited at the heart of this attempt is not (where maybe it appears to be) in the relation of picture and pictured, but between the picture-relation (including both picture and pictured) and the pattern-relation (likewise for pattern and patterned). That is, between a relation to something else and a relation to indifferent to that difference, and which instead differs differently – between, one might say, its matter and its form. A standard name for supposed picture-patterns? Truth-functionality. (The very idea!)
2. Note that, on this account, the self-critical or self-cancelling dimension of the Tractatus (articulated in the framing propositions but operative everywhere) succeeds in acknowledging some of the reflexive problems of picturing – that is, of picturing the picturing relation, but perhaps continues to rely on the correspondence of picture and pattern. It might even be pertinent to see the acknowledgement of the paradoxes of reflexive picturing as a way of defending the picture-pattern theory, by cutting off the royal road to a not-merely-framing critique, namely the reflexive path.
3. The Eleatic dichotomy: at the ontological level, there are only tautology and paradox. Unfortunately, diagonalization is neither tautology nor paradox. Unfortunately for whom? Most pointedly, for Parmenides, Protagoras, early Wittgenstein, early Sartre, Luhmann….