J writes in his interesting commentary to "More on Grice on logical form":

"Why JLS, the White Knight proffered the Law of the Excluded middle! And quite correctly. Yll either cry, or won't---at least within the space of the tune, or something. But at times a domain (or is it a "state description" issue or something) would need to be attached. Maybe Alice doesn't cry right then. But later that evening, she recalls the sad melody, and tears up. Of course proving that the tune produced the tears is another matter. Alice might be an actress and fib about it."

Good. I will try to elaborate on this:

We are discussing:

"Either it will bringt tears to your eyes, this song, or else... it won't". Cited by Ramsey, "Foundations of Mathematics" and other essays.

J goes on:

"Joking aside, attacks on the LOEM and LONC are not exactly new. As that ancient creep Heraclitus said, the sun is new every day. I do think in some way humans have an addiction to discreteness, even when its not ...present ( some PoMos said that as well--false binaries, etc). According to J's "pragmatic analyticity" (treatise to arrive at later date), we keep the LOEM and LONC, like we keep the rules of chess--thats how the logic-game is played. But are they written like in some timeless platonic abode? Un f-ing likely."

Yes. You are right -- and the title is DEVIANT! (Next blog post!)