The νούμενον and the φαινόμενον

In one of my earliest publications (nay, unpublications, but I keep the mimeo) on Grice, I managed to evolve from Horn.

He says, 'weak or strong'.

This in his scales -- which he borrowed, unnoticedly, from Urmson ("Probability" paper) -- Urmson notes that there is a _scale_, 'know', 'believe'.

My paper was meant as a commentary -- those required courses! -- on Sextus Empiricus, in Greek, on scepticism.

I manage to quote Bar-Hillel et al into the bargain. A mixed bag. Basically, Bar-Hillel was saying that a purely phenomenalist language is _hardly_ a language.

I appended then the idea that

the real scale here thus is

νούμενον, φαινόμενον

or

ν and φ

for short.

A lot of Grice's linguistic botanising can thus be rewritten now in the

ν vs. φ

vein. I'm referring specifically to his "Causal Theory" (WoW).

For consider:

i. The pillar box seems red (to me)
ii. The pillar box _is_ red.

Surely, Grice notes, i and ii are totally _compatible_. I regret that he does not consider how "red" can be _noumenal_ though. It seems to me that a pillar box is _never_ read. Using Locke's jargon of the qualities, it's a mere secondary thing for the pillar box to _be_ red (as opposed to bulky, say -- :)).

Exercise: write something using the proper ν and φ subscripts. Or alternatively, don't.