Need God Be Implicated?

By JLS
---- for the GC

--- WHILE MATES COULD BE PLEASANT CHAP TO TALK TO, Grice recalled, he could go over the top.

Thus we read in his "(The) Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language"

www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=78908560 -

"in any one state of any one thing God clearly sees the universe implied and encoded".

As Mates notes, Leibniz's words are:

veluti implicatum et inscriptum

--- but by THAT time, Grice had already introduced 'implicatum' in A DIFFERENT 'sense' if you must:

So how can the Universe implicate God, or vice versa. The idea that either of them (the Universe or God) abides the cooperative principle itches me.

---- Etc.

Later in the same book, Mates writes:

www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=78908560

"So the salva veritate clause in the principle would seem entirely superfluous, as would the reference to all propositions. Anyone who can recognize the same ..."

is a smart chap, it seems he is implicating. But of course, if you drop, 'salva veritate', -- and perhaps 'salvo sense', we get, it seems, a 'gonad' rather than a 'monad': Both Vanzetti AND saco are electrocuted and 'senseless' so. Or not. Etc.

As Grice noted, when he started using 'implicate' in English.

"The phrase 'implicated' already has a legal 'sense'."

Paul and Peter were implicated in the crime

It's less obvious how they could have been implicated in a charity, say. But why?

(Well, charities are a crime, and Evita Peron was right when her first act as First Lady of Argentina was to bombard that silly association of Anglo-argentine matrons, "The Association of Benevelent Dames" -- and she bombarded them metaphorically, with witty remarks -- THEIR HUSBANDS bombarded the house where Evita lived _literally_. -- But I disgress (*). *As Kramer notes, "But I disgress" carries an unwanted 'implicature': -- He proposes to translate it to "And I disgress".)