Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

From:Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 0:41
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 > > >