We Do Not Live In Several Different,

The Problem Posed By Indirect Speech Acts Is The Problem Of How It Is Possible For The Speaker To Say One Thing And Mean That But Also To Mean Something Else.

The Ascription Of An Unconscious Intentional Phenomenon To A System Implies That The Phenomenon Is In Principle Accessible To Consciousness.

The General Nature Of The Speech Act Fallacy Can Be Stated As Follows, Using "good" As Our Example. Calling Something Good Is Characteristically Praising Or Commending Or Recommending It, Etc. But It Is A Fallacy To Infer From This That The Meaning Of "good" Is Explained By Saying It Is Used To Perform The Act Of Commendation.

There Are Clear Cases In Which "understanding" Literally Applies And Clear Cases In Which It Does Not Apply; And These Two Sorts Of Cases Are All I Need For This Argument.

Where Conscious Subjectivity Is Concerned, There Is No Distinction Between The Observation And The Thing Observed.