Carlin's Grandfather

In particular, I would like to address Kramer's points in two of his posts. The first is the analysis itself in "Funny you should mention that":

"Grandpa flouts the maxim of quantity with
WAY too much information, and the maxim of
manner (I guess) by using profanity with
a small child. Then Carlin’s flouts the
maxim of [relation+] by defending the Grandfather’s
adherence to the maxim of quality when it
was his flouting of quantity and manner
that needed explanation. (JL may have a different
analysis.)"

-- + I stick to 'Relation' because it seems to kill Grice's effect of 'echoing Kant' here for any philosophy student who has studied Kant under Abbott's translation: Quality, Quantity, Relation, Manner. --- In Kant's own German it is Qualitaet, Quantitas, Relation, Modus -- and in my preferred jargon, which can be traced back to Aristotle, which is of course Kant's point ("echoing Aristotle", he almost writes): "Qualitas", "Quantitas", "Relatio" and "Modus". But I get your point!

--- In the second post, the commentary on "He wasn't going to bullshit", Kramer adds:

"Relevance [Relation] and quantity, for
example:"

By being precise about the Relation being Relation, I mean: if we are going to use "Relevance", one may just as well use Informativeness for Quantity, and Trustworthiness for Quality, and Perspicuity for Manner. But I think Grice's point was to amuse the philosophy student with echoing Kant (echoing Aristotle) here.

Kramer goes on:

"if what I say is irrelevant, then a fortiori it
provides too little information."

Oddly, I would have thought the contrary, but I get your point. Grice considers this in Strand 6 of "Retrospective Epilogue" -- mainy his caveat about OVERSUPPLY of information -- which he found more problematic than its UNDERSUPPLY. I may elaborate on that.

Kramer continues:

"Carlin's defense of his grandfather's statement,"

To wit,

--- "I'm going upstairs to fuck your grandmother"

(It's fun we should be discussing this, seeing that some (self-called) pragmaticists can be such a bore!)

--- (Never mind, Kantian philosophers).


"does not answer the questions "Why did you
provide so much detail and why did you
say it so crudely?""

The problem is that these seem like ex post facto. Not so much regarding Carlin, but his grandfather. Surely his grandfather is unavailable NOW (at the time of his delivering the line) for comment.

So it would be OTIOSE to ask about the utterer's intention of

"I am going upstairs to fuck your grandmother".

We are only interested, as pragmaticists, about the intentions of the UTTERER of the report: Carlin. Why should he be explaining the intentions behind his grandfather? Is this empathy or what?

---

--- One may remain UNCONVINCED by Carlin's account, but I think he means what he says. I think he DOES provide an answer to Kramer's two questions, and he in fact suggests an answer along the lines that the grandfather would supply, ex innuendo.

The questions were:

Question I:

"Why does U provide so much detail?"

---

Question II:

"Why does U say 'it' so crudely?"

---

It seems that the answers are different if we think of them as applying to Carlin or to his grandfather. Re: II, for example, how can Carlin NOT be crude if he is just reporting via oratio recta. If his grandfather was profane, so was the grandson. Otherwise we wouldn't use the double quotes of 'quotation' here. He is repeating what he heard from his grandfather. So the question only makes sense as it applies to the Grandfather, and we've agreed that it would have been senile of the man to use something LESS crude (e.g. "I am going to have an affair with your grandmother").

So this leaves us only with Question I:

"Why does U provide so much detail?" -- Again, this applies only to the Grandfather. I.e. to the original or initial utterance itself. Come to think of it, it's not precisely OVERWHELMING with detail. I mean, he does not go into any SORT of detail as to how he proceeds to 'fuck' her. I mention this because Kramer mentions the 'virile' side to the grandfather's otherwise 'inappropriate' commentary. And, as Dale Spender writes, in "Man made language", 'fuck' CAN be used by a female to mean a male, "I fuck my boyfriend" -- meaning, NOT that he plays a passive role (literally) but "METAPHORICALLY". As Grice would say, "Women are women". They see things from THEIR perspective.

So, since U does NOT provide so much detail, I cannot see why we should answer WHY he does it. He does not. Or not.

Kramer continues:

"So is it irrelevant, or just inadequate in quantity, and does it matter, as it is uncooperative, and it's really the uncooperativeness that carries the joke[?]"

God knows. Problem with "La rire" is that it IS a bore to read. As Someone said: problem with humour theory is that it is HARDLY humourous.

No, I don't think it's 'uncooperative'. It may be gross, out of place, silly, senile even (I don't make Kramer's distinction between masculine senility and other), etc. But it seems to abide by Qualitas-Quantitas-Relatio-Modus alright. So perhaps we need something else to deal with Grice's humour if there is any.

Perhaps, on second or third thoughts, it is NOT a particularly Gricean joke at all.

"My grandfather would say, 'I'm going upstairs to fuck your grandmother'. He was an honest man and he wasn't going to bullshit a four-year old".

It IS Gricean overall, in the overall generality. The POINT of communication. We have two 'pirots': one utterer, one addressee. The fact that pirots can talk does not mean that pirots SHOULD talk (unlike parots). Once the utterance WAS made, assumptions follow. U wanted A to realise or believe that U was going to fuck A's grandmother. As a novelty? Silly. This covers 'exhibitiveness' of the intention. Reflexive intention comes next. The way U intends A to come to think he was going to fuck his grandmother, etc. Plus he WAS being honest (in not bullshitting anyone, including a four year old).

Plus, he never existed!