Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

On 6/28/05, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:
> Hello, Sai; welcome to the thread, and thanks for writing.
>
> Hello again, Joseph; and thanks for contributing again.
>
> Sai, your comment was about whether certain commands were "ethical";
> you distinguished two kinds of addresse of the command, and decided
> the command was "unethical" for both kinds.
>
> My question is, though, is the command "felicitous" or "infelicitous"
> in the sense of the technical definition of Searles (sp?) and Austin?
>
> If I "read you a-right", you think, along with me, that it would
> be "infelicitous" if the addressee was one of that "99.9%" who
> are "core ball-grippers"; but it would be "felicitous", although
> unethical, for addressees "with 'root access' ... to themselves".
>
> If that is indeed what you meant, then it seems your position is
> somewhere between the position I took earlier (on the one hand), and
> the position Joseph B. took earlier (on the other hand): in that,
> contra me and with Joseph, there are cases where this command is
> felicitous; but, with me and not-so-much-with-Joseph, these cases do
> not form a majority, but rather a very small minority.
>
> (I'm not sure how your view relates to Ray Brown's.)
>
> Did I get it?  Or not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom H.C. in MI
>
> (BTW if you managed to read the whole of the thread ere now, you saw
> that I was quickly forced to back off from my original statement as
> way-too-inclusive.  Imperative forms of "believe" are often
> felicitous, as many examples were given to show; it is just "commands
> to believe" that are in question.)
>
> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Sai Emrys <saizai@g...> wrote:
> > On 6/28/05, Joseph B. <darkmoonman@g...> wrote:
> > > >But it took me years and years of meditation etc. to learn
> > > >that. I would agree that 99.9% of people I've talked to
> > > >experience those things as core ball-grippers - that is,
> > > >things that happen *to* them whether they will it or not, and
> > > >thus that they cannot ethically be ordered to change.
> > >
> > > Agreed. But then many live an unconsidered/uncomtemplated
> life. :: shrug ::
> > > We all have our paths.
> >
> > *laugh* Indeed we do. Hail Eris! ;-)
> >
> > I should add another clause, actually... I don't think it's ethical
> in
> > *either* case.
> >
> > In the case of most people, because you shouldn't ask them what
> > they're not capable of. (You could potentially ask them to develop
> > that capability, though...)
> >
> > In the case of people with "root access" to themselves (are my geek
> > roots showing?)... it's also unethical, because it's simply too much
> > to ask.
> >
> > You can ask someone to change their behavior, but to change core
> > elements like thought processes is overstepping the bounds of what
> can
> > reasonably be requested short of an extreme imbalance of power or
> > obligation. I wouldn't be opposed to a persuasive argument, though -
> > just to command.
> >
> >  - Sai
>
>
>