[lit-ideas] General Upupa Meets General Picus

I think I have found a good nickname for L. K. Helm, which I hope (the 
nickname, not 'which', Helm, as -- as Geary will know, would be 'whom') he 
likes.




Upupa.



This is the term for an European bird, the hoppoe. Mythologically, it was the 
descendant of a general, hence the crest which is supposed to represent the 
military helm (cfr. "Helm" in L. K. Helm's surname -- "Helm").



I guess I could be General Picus (Woodpecker, and Roman symbol of Mars).



We are dicussing rationality, in contexts of war.



I will re-read his example (Helm's example) of the German 'dialogue'. I don't 
do German, on the whole. And I'm glad that, what's his name, Turing, broke 
their code.



But for how long does an enemy remains an enemy?



I was thinking of meaning and communication along Grice's lines -- the things 
are not as complicated as I intentionally paint them --. Grice's point is 
valid. 



Consider General Odysseos's strategy.







????? "The Greeks wish to present

?????? the Trojans with this hereby

?????? beautiful wooden horse."





That was the _unwritten_ communicated message behind the 'ploy', strategy, or 
strategem. I would like to think that that is what, in Gricean parlance, the 
wooden horse _meant_.



However, was that _message_ communicated. I think so. Since inside the wooden 
horse were _killers_ who could possibly care less about continuing happiness on 
the part of the welcommers of the wooden horse, I would think the strategy here 
would be:





???????????? GOAL:???? Kill the Trojans



STRATEGY:?? MEANS TO ATTAIN THAT GOAL



?????????????????????????????? construct a wooden horse that says, "We love you 
-- thanks for being

?????????????????????????????????????? so patient, but we home-miss, and hope 
this souvenir will

??????????????????????????????????????? remember as by."



---------------------------



ACTION, etc.



ACTION: MISSION, POSSIBLE. COMPLETED.



Trojans killed.



--- With 'natural' signs it is more difficult. Native Americans used smoke to 
mean _war_, or _peace_ I forget. And smoke means fire. And fire usually _means_ 
war.



I recalled that Anne Weiser's essay is actually called, "How NOT to answer a 
question", and she, quoting Grice, mentions the distinction which she invents 
between



??????????? strategy:?? 'open', aimed at co-rational agent



and



?????????? strategem:? not 'open', but 'covert'. Aimed at rational agent, but 
not co-operative.



The answer she has in mind is answers to:



??????????????????? "How old are you?"



She finds that rude and aggressive. She is also following Robin Tolmach Lakoff, 
who was working with Grice.



"How old are you?" would be language used as WEAPON, not shelter.



Yet, Anne Weiser devices various (like 53) answers to that which will _reply_ 
without replying.



I recall one,

?

?????????? "Don't worry -- They'll let me in at Barney's"



-- where Barney, she tells, is the bar in Chicago where she was delivering the 
lecture.



So the utterer of an evasive reply (which "implicates") is yet co-operative at 
a level while competitive at another. It defends from the attack.



So perhaps ars conversationalis and ars martialis are not as different as Grice 
thought they perhaps some people thought they were!



Cheers,



JL






More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail!





 


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com

Other related posts: