By J. L. Speranza
for the Grice Club, etc.
Are you NOT annoyed by the phrase,
"in no particular oder"?
-- I _know_: there are more things to be annoyed by -- than are conceived in your dull philosophy, Octavio. But I'm intrigued what Barbara Walters means by 'particular'. We _know_ what she means by 'order'.
Ditto for Grice. In his "Pilgrim's Progress, being mainly a dream I had some time ago", by 'Christian', aka J. Bunyan, Bunyan writes of his having met who he calls the "Formalist".
This possibly gave Grice a clue when he wrote:
"I saw a couple of beasts down there.
They all reared their ugly heads: and some,
like Extensionalism, had _two_ heads
attached to her."
Anyone who's in the film-business knows that the 'order of appearance' is immaterial. Who cares if
Jemmy Button
played 'The Bellman' in an episode of "Sex and the City"?
"Alphabetical order" is perhaps what we need.
For Grice the betes noires are twelve, in no particular order:
i. Scepticism
ii. Materialism
iii. Reductionism
iv. Functionalism (he thought it was defunct, but still scared him -- or scared him because it _was_ defunct).
v. Mechanism
vi. Extensionalism
vii. Empiricism
viii. Positivism
ix. Phenomenalism
x. Physicalism
xi. Nominalism
xii. Naturalism
---
Masters in Gricean Studies. With an option to a doctorate. Join the Grice Club. Make your checques payable to "Griceland, Inc."
Exam Quiz:
i. Discuss at least five and a half
betes noires by Grice. Give cuter names to the beasts.
ii. Enjoy.
iii. Don't take too long. We have things to do.
Etc.
iv. Try to order them alphabetically. Use the Cyrilic alphabet if you must.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What would you have her say? "In no order" is wrong. They are in an order - the order in which they appear. But they are not ranked by any commonly used ranking - alphabetical, etc. We need a quick way to say "in an order from which nothing should be inferred other than the intention that nothing be inferred from it." What do you propose?
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say...
ReplyDeleteI mean, I'm not proposing.
ReplyDeleteOr propositioning.
"These have the wrong illocutionary ring" to them, Grice chuckled. "It is perhaps to Frege's disgrace that 'to propose' means to have sex, while 'to proposition' means, and only means, to marry."
in no particular order
I think the woman needs only has to _drop_ the list of what she is listing.
To add, "in no particular order" is surely otiose to my understanding. For there IS a 'particular' order: the random one.
It's like when people correct,
"I didn't mean casually; I meant causally"
or vice versa.
Surely the distinction is more annoying with 'particular'. Is she suggesting it's not her _total_ order?
(Particular, after all, is an otiosity after 'partial').
By "drop" do you mean "say," e.g., "The five highest scorers on our exam were M,D,L,G, and K"? Wouldn't you want to cancel the implicature that you were giving the names in descending score order? ("Random" does not work, as randomness is a strict mathematical concept that may not describe the actual list.)
ReplyDeleteI think you have "propose" and "Proposition" backwards. One proposes marriage and/or propositions someone (i.e., proposes that oneself and said person have sex).
I don't think I would Abuct the implicature in the first place, i.e. that the teacher who says:
ReplyDeleteThe two highest scorers in the
test were Jack and Jill
--- Surely, as a fellow student, I wouldn't give a hoot, as Grice would say, if she scored higher than he did or vice versa. I grant that with five listees it gets more complicated in that _I_ may be included.
Thanks for the propose/proposition. I guess I was correlating 'signifier' with signified in no particular order!
I should not be surprised that mathematicians use 'random' distinctly. Have you met one?
Have you met one?
ReplyDeletewhen you have the time
i. Name of mathematician who does this. I hope he is not Hardy. Grice is constantly quoting "the renowned British mathematician G. H. Hardy".
ii. Name a random.
Etc.
Silly, the teacher is not speaking to the students. She's speaking to the parents. And you can bet your sweet ass they care whether there's an order.
ReplyDeleteI once interviewed an applicant for our law firm. She was a lovely Jewish girl who had served as a clerk for a judge in the Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. The US is divided into eleven judicial circuits (twelve actually, as D.C. gets its own unnumbered circuit), and clerkships are highly sought and a coup to obtain. Anyway, this young woman told a wonderful story about how her grandmother like to boast of her granddaughter's achievement: "She's a clerk for a judge in the Third Circuit - but there are eleven!" (suggesting that the numbering implies importance). So don't tell me A doesn't infer an order. Not when A stands for Abuela.
I have met mathematicians, but the precise meaning of "random" never came up. I have heard actuaries talk about it though in connection with what is known as Monte Carlo modeling.
I don't understand the request to "name a random."
I suppose the Arabic here is "azar". All bad words in Spanish are of Arabic origin. They start with 'a-' and are usually followed by 'r'. Most of the times, the 'a-' is otiose as in
ReplyDeletear-roz
which is really "roz", i.e. rice.
So I wouldn't be surprised if 'zar' is 'random'.
The Arabic expression for 'at random'
is
"al azar"
from which you get that 'azar' is a noun.
So I was suggesting if you could supply a sequence that a mathematician would call "monte-..."
Oops I was going to say "Montecarlo" but I meant, 'random'. Etc.
I do not believe I can supply a random sequence. For example, the list I gave (M,D,L,G, K) consisted of letters that I might claim were chosen "at random" and ordered "at random." But L and K are my initials, and G is my mother's, and M and D often go together, as in the abbreviations for Medical Doctor and Maryland, as well as in Roman numerals. Thus, the chances that I would pick L, G, and K may be better than those that I would choose other letters, and the chance that I would choose D after choosing M seems especially strong.
ReplyDeleteI cannot fix that problem by rejecting those letters, as that would make the replacements non-random, too, having been chosen not to correspond to something I can identify. No, the best I can say about the letters I chose is that you should attach any significance either to the letters I chose or the order in which I placed them. And I do that by saying that I chose them for no particular reason and put them in no particular order.
I cannot correctly say "I chose them for no reason," as (i) I chose them because I had to choose SOMETHING, so that's a reason, and (ii) I may have had a reason for choosing those particular letters of which I was not conscious. The purpose of "no particular order" is to tell A not to read anything intentional into the order given, whether or not he may read something unintentional into it.
Would you like "specific" better than "particular"?
No. I give up. What I'll do is psycho-analyse it every time.
ReplyDeleteFor if you are right.
Whatever order they choose there is an order, namely the one they chose. And if I understood you aright, he (the dropper) may not even know it, but I SHOULD. Etc.
--- Must reveal that I'm discussing these things with R. B. Jones elsewhere, and we are about to expose it all -- Grice's beasts, etc. so I am getting convinced that there is SOME order or other in the dropping by Grice of the 'like' betes noires. Oddly I sent a silly post to the blog on this on "Like a virgin" because Grice says that all those twelve things are "like" this or that, which has a loose side to it. So I won't press matters by going into more logic when there is no logic to it, etc. But many thanks! Etc.
Forgive my stubbornness. I am making two claims, which you can accept or reject:
ReplyDelete1. When a list is given, A will either infer a ranking or suspect that there is one that has eluded him. In either case, A will appreciate being told that the order is insignificant.
2. The word "random" is not appropriate for this purpose, as there are a lot of orders that, while not technically random, are nevertheless of no significance. With "random" banned, we say "in no particular order" to provide A with the comfort described in 1.
Sometimes, we use alphabetical order, and say so, to prevent A for seeking a deeper psychological meaning in an apparently unordered list while making the point that the order does not communicate a substantive ranking.
I see. So one is licensed to explicate as it were the implicature
ReplyDeletein no particular order
as being
in no particular order
OTHER than THIS one.
---
I wonder if that's no self-contradictory.
People do say, Grice says, contradictory things, when pressed (I mean, when we press the logical form enough so that we see that U is being contradictory).
A case in point that brought me to a fight with Larry Horn, at Yale, concerns what he calls 'metalinguistic' negation. This is not 'logical' negation.
""Illogical", then?" I asked spontaneously and with a smile to it.
"Mmpff" he replied as he accomodated his glasses. "I guess you can say that".
We later fought over bicycles and bisexuals. I was arguing.
I am a lesbian; thus, I'm straight.
On the basis that
I'm 2-sexual, thus I'm 1-sexual
cfr.
I have two cars; thus, I have one car.
He objected, "Surely you are not suggesting that a bicycle is a monocycle".
But I _was_. Ah well.
I guess it depends on whether this order is a "particular" order within the meaning of the phrase "in no particular order". Seems like a circular inquiry.
ReplyDeleteWould "in no significant order" be better? If so, you need only add that usage of "particular" to your repertoire and continue to march.
More than 'circular', Etchemendy would have it, autophoric, but no, I think that while I can continue the march, etc.
ReplyDeleteEtchemendy and Barwise, and I argued against them with R. Helzerman in Analytic-Philosophy, elsewhere, want to say that
authophora
is self-reference. (Where 're-' is, strictly, contradictory: 're-' means back as in retroduction.
In no particular order
other than
THIS
.
order .
. .
. .
.
Their example is
"I lie" (Epemenides).
They argue
(p) p is false
is similarly _circular_ as you say, or autophoric, as I prefer.
I regret the implicature seems conversational, rather than conventional. The test here is Gricean:
"See if you can get rid of the
implicature by changing the trigger"
(WoW:ii)
see if you find a detached
way of saying what you mean
i.e. a way that detaches _you_ from any unwanted 'implicature' that your choice of words, unhappy one, in retrospect, may invite.
I find that all your suggestions this far
(ii) in no significant order
(iii) in no specific order
bring in the same ... shall I say... bitch?
I don't understand. The order clearly IS an order, but, absent an explanation, A does not know whether the order is significant. Where the order is not significant, U makes that fact explicit by saying "in no significant order." Please explain why that is not unambiguously informative.
ReplyDeleteI get how "In no particular order" requires "other than this one" if this order is a "particular" order, which I can understand your saying it is. But "In no significant order" does not need "other than this one," as this one is not a significant order.
Consider:
"The five highest scorers were D, B, J, Y, and T. No implication attaches to the order." Is the second sentence otiose? If not, how do we handle it parenthetically?
Yes. You are right. It _seems_ to 'detach' with 'significant' -- which is just as well.
ReplyDeleteI supposed I've been corrupted by Grice on 'significant' though.
You are saying 'significant-U', i.e. significant for U at the time of uttering.
For surely he may find out that the order _was_ significant (Where I come from there is a whole city district we call "Villa Freud", so go figure).
As for your teacher:
At a meeting with the parents:
"The five highest scores were: D, B, J, Y, and T."
"I don't understand".
"What is it that you don't understand?"
"There's only four students in your class. It's Advanced Placement. Logic 101".
Perhaps I would go, safely with,
ReplyDelete"in this or that order"
"in some order or other"
People bring in 'disjunction' like that -- when they really don't know (to echo Jennings in "The Genealogy of Disjunction") what they are talking about?
Actually, I am not saying significant-U. U thinks that whatever significance the order may have to him (it may be an order that is knowingly and intentionaly meaningful to U, e.g., the first name is first because it sounds most like his own mother's name), it should have no significance to A.
ReplyDeleteOK. Significant-A. Yes, makes sense:
ReplyDeleteIn no significant (to you) order.
Slightly authoritative, on the face of it, or rather on the face of the addressee, but if U has the straight face to say it I guess she should.
This invites, as you note, a parenthetical:
In no significant (to you, I gather) order.
The problem as you note is perhaps that should U make THAT explicit, the counter-suggestive A (for Gricean addressees are _always_ countersuggestive) will add:
Premise ii. The lady Doth Protest Too Much, methinks.
---
Conclusion. Etc.
Elsewhere we are discussing cases like those: "Et In Arcadia Ego" (Da Vinci Code). An apparently silly phrase hiding all sorts of hidden meanings. Etc.
I once devised a complete sub-script device with one of my lovers. Oddly, from Birmingham: Grice's birthplace. I keep all the letters.
We assumed that caeteris paribus every adjective had to be undestood in terms of the _other_:
Your car is beautiful-A.
Surely-A NOT-A as beautiful-A as Yours-A.
In case the utterer's OWN perspective of things was meant, the "U" subscript was thought of as 'mandatory':
Beauty-U is-A in-U/A? the-A eye-U of-U the-U
beholder-A.
We concluded that it was a waste:
i. of energy
ii. of wit
iii. of love
iv. etc.
...but not of zeugma.
ReplyDeleteNo, not a zeugma necessarily, unless of course you expand it onto one.
ReplyDeleteApparenly it was an American lady or an English or British lady who first said it
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
-- cfr. Beauty is skin-deep.
(Things women say).
The idea that, if you are right,
'order'
refers to
'to-you-order'
-- i.e.
in no particular order (to you I expect)
but in no particular disorder either for what it's worth
--
begs the circular question
-order
-order to A
-order to A as perceived by U.
-order to A as perceived by U that A will perceive it.
-etc.
The Zeugma thing is an interesting one.
In fact, Dorothy Parker's
My apartment was so small there was barely any room other than to lie my hat and a few friends.
-- surely the order (sic) is particular:
"other than a few friends and my hat"
does not do, for surely she respected her hat more than the occasional night-stand.
(I once developed a Cantorian calculus about this, 1-night stand, 2-night stand, aleph-night stand: meaning Platonic soulmate, etc. Didn't work).
But
ii. What irritates me slightly is that, spelling apart, I'm not sure this IS a zeugma. Her whole point is that there is no essential distinctin, as I hope there isn't between one laying and the other (laying).
Etc.
I was referring to:
ReplyDeleteWe concluded that it was a waste:
i. of energy
ii. of wit
iii. of love
iv. etc.
---------
As for Ms. Parker's zeugma, clearly the order is significant: you can't put the punch line in the middle of the joke.
My wife and I have two night stands in our bedroom. So there.
Yes. I am told that 'one-night stand' as opposed to your "one night-stand, two night-stands", originates in variete.
ReplyDeleteThese people were RELYING on it being a one-night stand only (for it was the boring provinces and surely it should be an incentive not to miss the thing), the billboard playing
Judy Garland
in Delaware, Tunckton
8 pm
1934
One-Night Stand Only!
---
Thanks for my having reconsidered the 'zeugma' thing. Indeed,
'waste' is possibly zeugmatic in my list. But don't they all spring from a pro-attitude on the part of U and A:
energy (wasted) -- i.e U is being energetic
love (wasted) U loves.
wit (wasted) U is witty
etc (wasted) U is ... etc?
--- This last is a trick but I'm in a hurry.
Later