In a message dated 7/8/2012 12:25:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: The point about "whistling it" is that, as an expression (with a kind of sense that is common in certain kinds of intellectual culture), it offers some everyday notion to explicate something that here goes beyond the everyday [compare Einstein's determinism explained in terms of a God who doesn't play dice: does God play anything? --- I'll re-read McEvoy's contribution. But I'd like to point out that in the original quote, by F. R. Ramsey: in 'General Propositions and Causality’, in his (posthumous), "The Foundations of Mathematics", Routledge, 1931, p. 238 -- perhaps we can get an earlier citation? --: is: "But what we can’t say, we can’t say, and we can’t whistle it either." The first part of the utterance reminds me -- and indeed Grice -- of John Cook Wilson. This was a great figure in the Wykeham chair of logic at Oxford. YET, what Grice mainly learned from Cook Wilson (we have to add "Cook" since Wilson is a rather too spread surname in England) was: What we know we know. or, as Grice has it, perhaps ungrammatically: What we know, we know. Ramsey: What we can't say we can't say. Or more ungrammatically, as Ramsey has it: What we can't say, we can't say. YET, Ramsey goes on to add: "and we can't whistle it either". This shows that the logical form of Ramsey's utterance is: WHAT-WE-CAN'T-SAY = WHAT-WE-CAN'T-SAY & WE CAN'T WHISTLE this: WHAT-WE-CAN'T-SAY. This is a better reading than my previous one, where I suggested that the 'it' in "we can't whistle IT, either" means 'nonsense'. For surely Witters can whistle a part of Bethoveen's 7th symphony and yet it would be odd to require Witters to say it. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html