We are discussing variants on Grice:
WoW:
"We should perhaps continue
to call gramophone records _discs_
even if (say) they came to be made
square" (48)
but cfr.
"We should perhaps continue to
call Tim's 'circle' a _circle_
even if he drew it square".
----
WoW:
"There was this difficulty in Oxford
between an incoming provost and
a college rule that dogs were not
allowed in college: the governing
body passed a resolution deeming
the new provost's dog to be
cat." (302)
Scenarios to consider
i. The provost's dog is a cat.
ii. The provost's dog is a dog, but it is called 'cat'.
iii. The provost's 'cat' barked all morning.
iv. The provost's cat barked all 'morning'.
-----
vi. The provost's cat doesn't look like a cat.
vii. The provost's 'cat' doesn't look like a cat
viii. The provost's dog is not a dog.
ix. The provost's cat won't mate your Persian.
x. The DNA for the provost's cat showed it was canis domesticus.
xi. The provost's felis domesticus is felis domesticus.
x. The provost's cat = The provost's dog.
Etc.
Refs.
The Times: "The dog that wasn't."
Oxford Views: "The provost's pet"
The Oxford Circular: "The obsoleteness of some of the
college rules and the strange case of the provost's cat,
we mean dog.
Marcia Watson: Interview with the Provost.
Oxford Notes. (The cat that wasn't).
Oxford Illustrated News: "Miracles in zoology: the old
rules and the provost's dog-cat".
Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The lawyer's issue is the drafting of the rule:
ReplyDelete1. For purposes of the rule banning dogs on campus, the Provost's pet is deemed not a dog but a cat."
Or,
2. The Provost's dog is for hereby deemed not a dog but a cat.
Surely, you will allow that it is not enough to label the dog a cat; it must also be de-labeled as a dog. But in #1, we know that the rule requiring that all dog poop be scooped applies to Fido the cat, whereas under rule #2, that rule would not apply, as Fido's poop would not be dog poop.
This lawyering is hard. I think I'll retire.
2.
>This lawyering is hard.
ReplyDelete>I think I'll retire.
There are lovely homes in the Oxford countryside. Just joking.
But hey they may never want your services (And you'll have less of a pressure).
Note that Grice is clear here.
It's rule vs. resolution:
"There was this difficulty in Oxford between an incoming provost and a college rule that dogs were not allowed in college: the governing body passed a resolution [or regulation if you mustn't] deeming
the new provost's dog to be
a cat." (302)
RULE: Cats not allowed.
resolution -- now comes your wordings
First Draft:
"For purposes of the Rule 83b above, banning dogs on campus, the Provost's pet is deemed not a dog but a cat -- while _on_ campus. He will regenerate his essential properties of a dog if the provost cares to have him pee and poo in the meadows of Christ Church".
Second Draft:
"Resolution. In appliance with Rule 83b (vide College Statutes, Chart 1897 -- ad lib. 56 sect. 87), the Provost's dog is for hereby deemed not a dog but a cat and be forced to bark on occasion."
----
>I think I'll retire.
Yes, it's hard. And the consequences are an affront to the basics of animal-right code of Switzerland. Surely the pet should have a 'say', or at least an 'implicate'.
Kramer:
"Surely, you will allow that it is not enough to label the dog a cat; it must also be de-labeled as a dog."
Yes, I suggest two previous resolutions: for each draft. One for delabeling a dog first, and then the one you propose where you perfomatively and operatively deem him a cat. It's surely easier to deal with 'abstract' or vacuous entities when we deem them, rather than with full-blown substantials, like dogs (or cats, for that matter).
You object:
"But in my first draft for the resolution (#1 above) we do know that the rule -- 83b-sect.4) requiring that all dog poop be scooped applies to Fido the cat"
while on campus. The provost doesn't need to scoop, surely, a cat's poop _outside_ campus, right?
Kramer continues:
"whereas under Resolution in drft #2, that caveat would not apply, as Fido's poop would not be dog poop."
That's right. And which suggests that your second draft be preferred. I would, for rhetorical effect, to your second draft the ";" justification:
"The Provost's dog is for hereby deemed not a dog but a cat; and a forteriori his poop to be cat poop; a poop is a poop is poop (and that just not on college)."
Etc.
This lawyering is hard. I think I'll retire.