[lit-ideas] Re: General Picus Picus
- From: jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:25:52 -0500
Helm:
"From what I understand, there is much more flexibility in modern war-gaming,
a sort of anticipation of dialogic possibilities: If we do this, the enemy
may do U, V, or W. There is a remote possibility that they'll do X, Y, or
Z, but if they do we shall have an easy time of it. Now if they do U then
we should respond as follows . . . but if they do V, we should do . . . or
if they do W then we should . . . If there is some way to trick them into
doing X or Y, then we should do that. It's worth a try. But their best bet
would be to do U; so let's do most of our planning for that. And then the
final, "can anyone here think of any other possibilities?""
Thanks for the excellent comments.
I'm _slightly_ worried because in my PhD dissertation, submitted to the
Department of Philosophy at the University of Buenos Aires, I do claim that
Grice's cooperative things are 'strategies', and now I think that I was
possibly wrong. I was also amused once to find a webpage written in Catalan (I
think) that goes, "selon J. L. Speranza", which means, 'according to Speranza',
conversational maxims are 'strategies'!
I think I got it all wrong from Ann Weiser. In an article where she expands on,
????????????? "Let's go to "Blimpey" -- a bar.
????????????? "Do you think they'll let me in?
and conversations like that. It's called, as I recall, something on
'conversation' or 'conversational' and mentioning Grice _avant la lettre_, i.e.
before the publication of 1975 "Logic and Conversation". "How not to answer a
question" I think the essay is called.
In that paper, Weiser distinguishes between two rather silly words that I
should have checked with my Liddell/Scott's Greek Lexicon. These are:
????? 'strategy'
vs.
?????? 'stratagem'
or strategem, I'm never sure.
Weiser, out of her pocket, says a 'strategy' is an open thing (which is
nonsense if we're talking 'war' -- or generalship -- because a 'general' can
mislead his own troops, as Frontinus gives one example I posted to Lit-Ideas).
A 'stratagem', on the other hand, Weiser prescribes, is the _real_ hidden thing.
For Grice, any attempt to mislead the audience or addressee precludes from the
act being 'communicative'.
The idea is difficult, because _enemies_ sometimes _do_ dialogue. So, there is
communication in competitive or war situations even if Grice's 'cooperative
principle' is not working or cancelled. There are articles written on this,
too.
Example,
?????? "Do not say what you believe to be false"
That would be a 'maxim' for Grice, universalizable, and yet derivable from some
general rational, and I hope means-end, analysis.
Now, two enemies may abide by it.
"I'm showing a white flag!"
uttered by an Argentine may mean,
"Don't kill me, Ghurka!"
But the Ghurka may care less and just slit the utterer's throat.
So it's all pretty confusing!
Meanwhile, the picus picus keeps knocking on my wall!
Cheers,
J. L.
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
Other related posts:
