Page 69 - Studio International - December 1973

ART THEORY& PRACTICE
ask what people took as a pragmatics) ? Then as satisfaction in relation to the logical the discourse. But it cannot be an induction of
a consequence of those set-conditions, conditions on individual logics ordering the 'internal relations outfit' because induction
possibilities of obtaining a set either the paired set of utterances. So, in a way, reply involves one in observing nature, as it were, or a
egocentrically held, or, even better, as a quasi- may mean permissible reply, or an asymptote of form of nature of some kind, and our recursive
set of dimensions upon which one moved the permissible, or in an inductive logic, a reply mapping has left that reflexive paradox out of
towards nothing more than a series of points of is a measure of one's learning from time Ut1 court.
reference (towards their constructability, and its antecedent theory, so that one may have We have two propositions and we say they
towards the 'typing' of the constructive points in fact an index of induction relative to (say) a exist in a connected way. Do we introduce a
of reference), what do we do ? We induce that group of propositional attitudes rather than, in modification with some kind of induction from
our utterances are of a certain kind, type, given a this situation, an induction relative to gross one situation to the next, and one pair to the
point of reference, etc., or perhaps we are given pieces of discourse. And, in a sense, a dynamic next ? Now this needs a large amount of effort
the existence of an utterance through the mal- principle is involved with that inductive index (and terminology). One is dealing with
formed/well-formed point of reference ? What by the defeasibly generalizable deontic aspect of fundamental points of reference for discourse
about the type/token distinctions and the `going on'. Recursion of the inductive index as well as dealing with consequence, i.e. at the
extensional/intensional distinctions of types and states around the problems of the annotator's same time one is dealing • with a fundamental
tokens ? (This is a question pace Leo Apostel's deontic, epistemic and inductive logics being way of 'going on' which ii volves parameters-
`Pragmatics of Natural Languages' about the immanent in those agents (or whatever) — that are narrower than one might have taken as
plausibility of a type/token distinction, the it wouldn't be that sort of recursion. Recursion far as a gross list of annotations/discourse was
extensional/intensional distinction, sentence/ is pretty trivial anyway as far as a single body of concerned (narrower in the sense of having a
utterance and proposition/belief respectively.) discourse is concerned, as far as usual more complex set, or even con-joined numbers
That there is in fact a distinction between propositional logic is concerned, i.e. well- of logics, as functions/operators maintaining a
utterances is already a move towards an formed atomic formulae can be found. It might highly complex conceptualization/construction
intensional mapping of speech, or an asymptote be interesting to try and formulate a notion of of context); and/or the ramifications of that
of a fragment of a language, given that induction that might suggest the instrument of particular context placed in a deontic, epistemic,
distinctions are of a less than trivial mapping. indexing one piece of discourse from another. etc. logic (vide the embedding problem) and a
But even a tense axis requires some Now these characterizations can't be based sort of lack of discrimination on the pairing, but
sophistication . . . Ut1,Ut2 . . etc. And then on a rational inductive logic. We may suggest this is a question of how to narrow the
one has a problem of 'and the next utterance something quite brutal or simplistic as an parameters, or permutations, of the logics.
U,3' reifying the difficulties of macro-lists inductive logic based on a paired association. We don't have, however, any grounds for'
being independent of the micro-lists if we Now, are we going to say here that x is a roughly claiming any theory or diachronic rationality
think of the latter as a way of dealing with the ordered pair (or approximating to an ordered which we propose will be one to which ordinary
lexical surface features of a given part of pair), or do we have paired associations, models can conform even to a degree of
discourse (or whatever). perhaps in the R. L. Martin pragmatic sense approximation. In fact, R. C. Jeffrey in his 1
. . . Phrase structure, a propositional logic, a (speaker/hearer, utterance and context `Dracula meets Wolfman' slaps that down rather
set theory revitalized by modal logic (vide parametrized) ? Or it is going to be a much heavily (see Induction, Acceptance and Rational
Abraham Robinson's remarks on non-standard more recursive sort of pairing ? Or does the Belief, Reidel, 197o).
models, i.e. all models in semantic model pairing crop up as the two given objects (parts This recognition of deviation from standards
theory) plus a grammar, projection rules for of discourse, syntax, etc.), i.e. the (quasi) logical of rationality is not a sign of irrationality on the
generativeness and a relativized epistemic/ operators and (or) the set conditions are over part of the agent unless the agent refuses to
deontic logic . . . ? and above, or between, the pair inside the recognize any point in engaging in deliberation
So what is an inductive mapping of one brackets ? The pairing can be the actual black designed to rectify the deviation or recognize
utterance after the next ? Then one would have and white verbal stimulus plus the context deviation as a sufficient reason for embarking
the object of this inductive mapping of knowing which I think I inhabit as an ordering (cf. upon an inquiry, with the principles of
how to act oneself/describing how someone Atkinson). You can have an a priori sort of pair rationality stating the necessary conditions for
acts/projecting how someone may act after Ut1 or you can have a pair that is constructed, the equilibrium in which the critical review of
based on a criterion of adequacy rather than a where the latter, the Atkinsonian pair, would one's probability judgements is unreasonable.
criterion of rationality. The latter is so mixed amount to the black and white stimulus plus, if These conditions are not sufficient for one's
up, one might allow any approximation to what you like, what associations you produced in belief to make a contribution to rational
one might expect as an adequate approach to consequence plus an element of recursion. probability. (This is scandalous — that induction
(x)' as satisfying in some way one's Whatever the operators and their assumed' should have that sort of problem orbiting
rationality criteria. The situation of 'going on' conditions may be (and even whatever around it, which it doesn't, in many ways.)
apropos the conversationalist problems of permutations we may construct out of our We're dealing with the paired-association
implication, plus all the logical operators, is constructible range of logics), they will remain system, from atomic place to atomic place, point
going to involve (more or less) a deontic logic outside the brackets of that pair, triplet, etc., of reference to point of reference. But do we
(cf. rationality conditions), e.g. 'we ought to go etc. The recursion is not a genuine recursion in have an index in fact after the points of reference
on', etc. But again we run into the problem of a the sense that the gross pieces of discourse do are given, as it were, constructed on top of those
generalized logic, in this case a deontic logic not in fact embrace the problems of satisfaction objects/points of reference, etc. ? Or do we just
satisfied or prefixed to our ordered (or and of 'having a conversation', etc. With this in have to consider the inductive index on top of
approximating to an ordered) pair, triplet, etc. mind the grossness of discourse can be those stimulus responses, complex and indexed
However, we may have to sort out our axiology ironically micro-structural. How can we think ones at that ? If you thought of the associations
of prefixed/suffixed logics. The simplest of degrees of positive generalization to the next as points of reference then the number of
pragmatics must be placed around Montague's instance ? The inductive index going from operators outside the brackets that held the
models which maintain a kind of subjective stimulus to stimulus, or from stimulus to pairs and triplets, etc. would in fact be indexing
growth of industry in allowing that one response, or both ? We simply have a piece of the person to the object, but also the object to
gross piece of discourse is adequate as a discourse and the problem of adding up the the person, a sort of object revelation (an
reply to the last gross piece of discourse. association. Both indexes of induction are about approach to revitalized modalities ?) and a
`Reply' may be taken as quasi- or pseudo- the discourse, about the prospects of continuing revelation of the individual as he is
263