> Well, it goes together with "preparatory felicity" for me. Why
> wouldn't you ask someone to do something you know they can't do?
> Because it's unethical. That's distinct from "because it's
> infelicitous", because that is not a reason to do or not do something
> (like making that request), whereas ethics is.
Okay, yes, as marking it distinct from infelicity. I'll acquiesce re:
appropriateness.
> But I don't claim my ethics are necessary truths. ;-)
Mine are but only for me. :-)
>Perhaps it's *with* her blessing that it is so? :-P
"Hail, Eris, accept this offering. Now, please..... IGNORE ME!"
>And of course, there's the sidestep - which is what seems to
>be actually requested / desired in most cases - which is that
>it is not actually a request for belief (or whatever), but a
>request for behaviour *as if* there is that belief. I.e. to
>"act straight" etc. And that, indeed, can be a very effective
>and convincing argument, as well as a lot more easily implemented.
Indeed. I agree. I brought this up many posts ago. I consider it an
important part of the role of the imperative. Most others seem not.
>Muh? I think we're definitely a very small minority...
Okay. I had pretty much filed these under "minor siddhis" - those
interesting distracting abilities that arise during Buddhist meditation.