Page details

---- Or, Themes from Grice.

---- by JLS
------- for the GC.

I INTEND (i.e. think it feasible) to digitalise (or something) some of my already (digitalised) work. E.g. There these "Themes from Grice" which were distributed by "The Argentine Society for Philosophical Society" (that is, me -- and my friends -- we meet on Bulnes Street -- not far from the polo grounds) and it contains some of my publications, in pdf format, with page details.

I have often be offended on three fronts:

--- "Publish and present page details"

--- "Are you a historian of Grice, merely?"

--- "Are you a virgin?"

Etc.

So here are some answers (to 1):

--

The original title of the publication is intended to mimic this Swiss Gricean, although my thing probably pre-dates it. (Or then it doesn't). It's called "Themes from Grice" but it has a subtitle to it: "Selected essays", by yours truly that is. It's quite a thick volume and I have it before my own eyes. (I provide a snail mail address where one could get it, etc.). Page iii contains, "Details of publication", so it's:



pp, 82-101 -- for a thing where I quote Grice extensively. The thing has an ISBN but it was NOT edited by me. I should provide the ISBN when I find the thing! -- (This is due to the recent technique, silly one, of listing publications in inverse order of appearance -- flouting "Be orderly" as per Grice --). The references to Grice are minimal there, but to "Speranza, J. L." are quite extensive. I should get a few Speranzians in due time. Or something. But then you can also count me on having been my whole life "he was a philosopher well behind his time."

------

Then there's

pp. 45-55 -- which sounds -- or 'reads' -- but how can I mark the distinct implicature -- suspicious to me: 45-55? This is my implicature: to mean: on some page or other, extending to some OTHER page or other. I was particularly offfended when that thing was published, because (i) I was found it was an online publication; (ii) apparently there ARE some hard copies made, etc. It's about Grice and, what's his name, his student T. Nagel, on a topic I had to cover (not because I wanted): Nagel on "sexual perversions". He wants to say that the sexual pervert is never a Gricean (and I agree) because, hey -- Nagel knows about them (just joking). It's not as interesting as it seems. It's an analysis of 'erotic' as OVERused by literary critics. The way they write today it would seem that all literature is pornographic -- erotic gaze here, the other's dissidence there. I just analyse a short story by Borges and use D. Balderston, who I knew when in Buenos Aires, and have pic to evidence, on the, not "Hegelian" but 'faecal' (sp?) dialectic in Borges -- 'la dialectica fecal' -- a very scatological topic, as it were.

---

Then there's

Some page in The Buenos Ayres Herald. There was this "Wednesday Book" column. And I just submitted -- never fear -- not my review of Grice, Way of Words, but a biography of Borges -- by far a better thing that Edmondson's later thing. It's Woodall bio. I was unaware at the time -- who SAW that silly play anyway -- that "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" was Richard Burton's silly attempts to articular a nursery rhyme ('Who's afraid of the big big wolf?'). In any attempt, I entitled my thing, "Who is afraid of J. L. Borges -- the Anglo-Argentine?" -- and got published alright. The fact that I quote Borges in Anglo-Saxon, 'and neh forthren' and they should not be afraid, Helped.

----

Then there's

The many pages of my PhD dissertation which translates as "Gricean" basically. It does feature the eponym, in the vernacular, and it's a good read, provided you can read it, etc. (And you enjoy it, of course. My examiners did, or pretended to, because I got full grade and you can -- but still may not -- call me 'doctor' (or something). It's not in natural English.

-----

Then there's Palacios

491-497. This is advertised, I think, in the Philosopher's Index. Palacios is the surname of this lady who ran the Philosophy Department where the colloquium was held. "I will let you know if I publish the thing". She did. It was only when in Oxford that I was able to find a copy of it. The fact that she omitted the source of the quote, which was A. Pope, and reference to "the feast of reason" makes the title of my contribution, as per "Philosopher's Index" -- "the feast of conversational reason" more kryptic than need be. It is a good read, and it was even better as 'elocuted'. I recall the clapping. Made me feel like the tenor I am.

---

"Humpty Dumpty", Jabberwocky, pp. 24-27. As the page numbering indicates (why should ONE note these things, rather than just volume -- it is a COMPACT thing, seeing all that I manage to implicate on behalf of Dumpty. I claim he was not really an utterer -- which was just as well, seeing that he was an egg. He died now (and neither the king's horses nor the king's men ever understood why).

----

Then there's

Revista de Filosofia, vol. God knows, ed. by Guariglia, Presas, Olaso -- and this is credited in the Philosopher's Index alright. I wrote it in English -- after having read Thomson on Rawls and how offended Thomson felt as the idiosyncrasies Habermas was writing about him -- usually without reading him, was the implicature. Thomson's essay -- (I corresponded with Thomson, of Cambridge) -- was entitled, "Reading Habermas reading Rawls". I entitled mine, "Reading Habermas Reading Grice", attaching the same implicature. The fact that I quote extensively in German did help the fact that Habermas refers to it in his The Pragmatics of Communication, MIT -- as I discovered years later, when again, in Oxford.

----

Then there's

"Review of Grice, Studies in the Way of Words". I was working -- well, 'work' is something we swimming-pool librarians never really do. Recall 'librarian' is euphemistic -- for M. Costa and she said, "write on a book you liked, or something." I did. She was at the time editing two publications: she DID work for the Univ. -- my alma mater. So I turned up my review of "the best book ever written -- by a philosopher -- if not a poet": "Studies in the Way of Words", and it was published in a meagre two pages, pp. 61-62, of God knows what volume of "Quaterni" -- it was meant for the "Bulletin" 'bibliografico', but Costa suggested it was too long for it, so it was upgraded to the "Quaterni".


---

Then there's

"First time in Brazil". This was shorter. M. Dascal published the 'resumo' in a thing which he called "Discurso verbal, discurso mental", published by the Istituto di Filosofia of Campinas, ---.

I did many reviews, I see, in these Selected Essays on: (alphabetically ordered): Atlas, Avramides, Bennett, Hare, Martinich, Schiffer, Reiter, Thomson -- all for M. Costa who edited this "Bulletin" 'bibliografico'. Quite fun.

----

And then I guess my earliest publication, I would rather think -- I have loads of previous pre-publications, -- vide answer to "Are you a virgin?" above --. It's called "The way of ... conversation?". I was reluctant to let have Grice quote from Locke ('the way of words' versus 'the way of ideas') so I had to murder his irony. It was read by Searle or something (or something meant to qualify 'read', not him when we met in Buenos Aires at that grand conference site -- he was staying in a hotel on Calle Libertad, which was fun if noisy like hell). This is on volume 5, of "Research" papers, and it's pp. 4-55 or something. I recall a little history behind it. I wrote it first in English -- never natural. It features the example, "How do you like Buenos Aires?". "Oh, quite well, I THINK. I like the people -- friendly, on the whole --, the weather's not so bad -- and I haven't been mugged yet!". I gloss the implicature as "I AM an idiot, right?" -- and then suggest that it's best not regarded as an 'implicature'. "Grice was a genius, and to have idiots 'implicate' this or that is an affront to his memory" or something. Or not.

Etc.