Grice on set theory

--- By JLS
------- for the GC


------ IN MY "Grice's Shaggy Dog Story", in view of current discussion with R. B. Jones on various topics, notably the idea of set-theory as the right formal metalanguage of things, I displayed Grice's display of interest in basic set theory, when in footnote on WoW:133 he notes the caveat that reads as a very fine
distinction indeed, using 'alpha', 'beta', and notably the basic symbols of set theory, in a metalinguistic or higher-order calculus.

"To the definiens," he writes", then, we should add, within the scope of the initial quantifer, the following clause: '& U's purpose in effecting that (Ax)
(......) is that (ER') (Az) (R' shaggy' x iff x [belongs] to y" -- where he uses
the set-theoretical sign for 'belongs'.

Searle/Vanderveken will later attempt a formalisation of some of these aspects in their "Foundations of Illocutionary Logic". While I have corresponded, and keep all my correspondence, with Searle on the basic philosophical stuff on 'conversation' say, my correspondence with Vanderveken, of Quebec, which I also keep, has focused on 'conversational implicatum' proper. There is a lot to be said and aimed at when it comes to set-theoretical formalisations -- which remain sort of descriptive rather than explanatory -- for things like Grice's main notions of this or that. Etc.