Agree. Fascinating to watch but I kept having thoughts re ethics, even though privacy issues were taken into consideration. I was a bit uncomfortable.
Also, a bit frustrating as to not making any specific conclusions.

I edited my last post to include another piece of research re feedback loop.

So, thanks for the link. Will watch more and say more anon. — Baden

I've watched it twice now, only 20 mins long, it informs and delights. It's a Wow for me :cool:

The summary where he talks to his son about the data recordings, who shows amazing understanding. And then shares his son taking his first steps. He echoes what his son whispers.

I look forward to hearing what you and others think...about the video and how much it explains the development of language in socio-cultural terms. Feedback loop * Is there some other, better ? explanatory factor or approach ?

Edited to add:
* another aspect:

They found that children elicit more responses from adults by making speech-like sounds and parents were less responsive to non-speech sounds. The research has implications for understanding how language and social skills develop and why children with autism develop speech more slowly than their peers. — LENA Research Foundation

The researchers observed increased sensitivity by adults with more education to the sounds the children produced. This likely encourages faster speech development for children in families with a higher socioeconomic status.

https://integratedlistening.com/blog/2014/03/26/language-development-parent-child-feedback-loop/

I'd always be willing to explain what I'm on about. Pinky promise. :wink: — Baden

I know and appreciate that. You are a devilish angel :halo: :naughty:

The advice goes without saying. What it often comes down to is which theory is least inconsistent with the observable facts of language learning. — Baden

True for some. But worth repeating, I think, as a reminder to self and others to be constantly aware and critical, to ask pertinent questions of 'just ideas'. Not being taken in by all of a theory just because one part seems right and agrees with how you roll.

And this parallels the gradual internalisation of the social to the inner voice whose self-sedimentation obscures the nature of its origin. That voice being the substrate from which said concepts speak. — Baden

You see this is an example of jargon. It can enrich but specialist language can also be like a secret code.
I think some philosophers sometimes use this as a blanket to obscure meaning.
Some just like to be clever with language and use it to provoke further discussion.That's fine.
They are in their comfort zone. And that can be instructive and amusing.

' I Simply Can't Function Without My Jargon ! ' :wink:

I am going to follow this piece of advice, from website:

It’s important to keep in mind that theories of language acquisition are just ideas created by researchers to explain their observations. How accurate these theories are to the real world is debatable. Language acquisition is a complicated process influenced by the genetics of an individual as well as the environment they live in.

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/processing-the-environment/language/a/theories-of-the-early-stages-of-language-acquisition — Amity

Via Vygotsky:

“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). — Baden

What evidence is there of this two stage development? I doubt things are so neatly divided. 

Thanks to Fooloso4 for telling me about this.
This is a totally fascinating TED talk by Deb Roy, MIT researcher.

He chronicled the development of his son's speech. Time accelerated motion analysis from bud to blossom, if you like. But really from 'gaga' to 'water'. Real world. And mostly jargon-free.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RE4ce4mexrU

Thanks for reply. Interesting to read of how you see the world of people, their awareness and understanding - or lack thereof.

So, if there is a possibility of not understanding your perspective, we need to listen and ask pertinent questions.

I'll try to do this by numbering specific points in turn.

1.

I think there are issues in believing we see things as they are. — leo

What are the implications of holding this view ?

2.

what I said to someone would be totally misinterpreted (even though my words were heard correctly), or sometimes we would disagree on something and later on realize that the only reason we were disagreeing is that we interpreted words differently, — leo

The problem of misinterpretation. Yes, there seems to be quite a bit of that, especially in philosophy forums. Not enough listening with some too eager to put their own message out. Of how they see the world. So, again - important to take time to read carefully and respond to key points, asking for clarification.

3.

the problem: each word in the dictionary is defined in terms of other words, which themselves are defined in terms of other words — leo

Yes. It can be frustratingly circular. However, not always and it is important to get a fix on which best describes your point. What does it mean 'to have a belief'.

4.

So language cannot tell us what others perceive and think, it only generates an idea in us of what they perceive and think. — leo

I think language is a necessary tool to progress best understanding of another person's perspective.
We don't need to keep a dictionary in our pocket to do this. Most words in common use are understood.
The difficulty lies in giving clear answers to some difficult questions. That can take time and patience.
Not knee-jerk responses.

5.

So the more natural assumption would be that we all have our own reality, rather than us all experiencing the same reality. — leo

Hmmm. So, what do you mean by 'reality' ?
My own view is that we are all part of the same world but we have different perspectives and beliefs.
Part of this is examining what exists (what is going on), or what we imagine is the case.

6.

if someone has an experience that I've never had, how could they communicate it to me? — leo

People attempt to do that all the time. Story telling. Just as you have done.

7.

if we were all blind except for a few people, and these people tried to communicate to us what they see, wouldn't we label them as crazies, as delusional, as hallucinating? — leo

Good use of speculative imagination.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favourite-philosophical-hypothetical-question-conundrum

8.

We're quick to label what we don't understand as hallucination, or delusion, or imagination, and I think there's some danger in that. — leo

Is that your experience ? It's not mine. Not everyone is so quick to stick labels on people.

9.

think we'd be better off assuming that others have their own reality, that there is not one single reality out there that we're all seeing. And then we would listen more to each other, attempt to understand what others see and think, instead of imposing our own reality onto them, which gives rise to all kinds of conflicts. — leo

Even if we agree that everyone has their own perspective, it doesn't follow that we would listen more to each other. Close listening and wish to better understand is an interpersonal skill important in effective communication. Not everyone is capable of putting their own views on backburner until this is established.

10. To improve communication. One example:

Be brief, yet specific

There’s actually a BRIEF acronym—Background, Reason, Information, End, Follow-up—to help you keep your emails short without leaving anything out. It’s a good policy for both written and verbal communication (I’ve always felt that my job as a writer was to clearly get the point across and then get off the page as soon as possible. Just two more items on this list!) Clear and concise are two of the 7 Cs of communication, along with concrete, correct, coherent, complete and courteous.
— Melanie Pinola

That's the best I can do for now...
Hopefully jargon- free and understandable. All the better to argue the toss :smile:

His children all have ridiculous posh names too. Lara Lettuce Johnson, Theodore Apollo Johnson, Cassia Peaches Johnson... — S

Now that I didn't know :smile:
And that's only the kids we know about...

He's actually named Alexander. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. — S

Yeah.
A bit of a mouthful, huh - and what comes out of his is...

'Spasms of incorrectitude' to say the least

:rage:

'Spasms of incorrectitude': Johnson's own words on lust, racism and the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/spasms-of-incorrectitude-extracts-boris-johnson-writing

--------------

all the Republicans keeping quiet about his latest remarks should be ashamed of themselves. Very ashamed. — S

Indeed. It is disgusting but not surprising.

On Monday, the former Ohio governor and candidate for the presidential nomination John Kasich did speak up, tweeting that what Trump “said about Democrat women in Congress is deplorable and beneath the dignity of the office.

“We all, including Republicans, need to speak out against these kinds of comments that do nothing more than divide us and create deep animosity – maybe even hatred.”

But senior party figures in elected office, among them Utah senator Mitt Romney, a frequent critic of the president, were silent. Some, such as Graham, instead devoted media appearances to defending Trump over images from the southern border of migrant men held in cages amid what one reporter called “sweltering” heat and “horrific” stench.’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/15/donald-trump-congresswomen-republicans-ocasio-cortez-tlaib-pressley-omar

And this parallels the gradual internalisation of the social to the inner voice whose self-sedimentation obscures the nature of its origin. That voice being the substrate from which said concepts speak. — Baden

'Self-sedimenting of inner voice' - that sounds murky.
What do you mean by this?

As I try to imagine this process of internalizing words and their meaning, I think it more of an absorption. Part of a taking in and, at times, an unthinking usage rather than a hidden, submerged and forgotten voice.

It isn't the voice that is self-sedimenting but, for sure, it grows from one level of understanding to another. Is that what you mean ? We develop our understanding of ever more complex words or concepts from a baseline. How else could it be ?
And so, our thinking process move onwards and sideways, back to front, gets shaped and shaken about ? No self-sedimenting voice here. Or have I totally misunderstood and lost the plot.

Here's more from Vygotsky:

The relation of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a continual movement back and forth from thought to word and from word to thought. In that process the relation of thought to word undergoes changes that themselves may be regarded as development in the functional sense. Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them. Every thought tends to connect something with something else, to establish a relation between things. Every thought moves, grows and develops, fulfills a function, solves a problem. This flow of thought occurs as inner movement through a series of planes. An analysis of the interaction of thought and world must begin with an investigation of the different phases and planes a thought traverses before it is embodied in words. — Vygotsky

More about this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/15/donald-trump-immigrant-failed-integrate

There was a time, before January 2017, when presidents and prime ministers celebrated immigrants and diversity as one of the defining strengths of their countries. Now our leaders pretend their own families have nothing to do with immigrants.

Soon we’re going to have to watch a German-American president playing footsie with a British prime minister who was born in New York, with Turkish and Russian roots, who is actually named Boris.

With all these immigrants around, it makes you wonder why we can’t find any real white nationalists to play the racism card any more. All these foreigners are taking the jobs away from our pure-bred bigots. They ought to go back to where they came from. — Richard Wolffe

How does the term 'function' function for our precocious three year old girl? Perhaps "function" means "I want it" and she is not going to give it up. — Fooloso4

You answered my question of

What is surprising here ? — Amity

The story did not surprise me. I was not surprised by it showing that:

we don't necessarily need to know what's going on with every single word in order to use a word: — StreetlightX

...language is also not something learnt atomistically, 'built up' out of a set of sets of discrete definitions which are then put together. — StreetlightX

The surprise element comes in the astonishment of the parents.
It is natural that it would surprise and delight them. Their 'precocious three year old girl' would seem to have the early makings of a genius ! Wow. Now, what would that be down to...I wonder.

The most well-known theory about language acquisition is the nativist theory, which suggests that we are born with something in our genes that allows us to learn language...

The Interactionist approach claims that if our language ability develops out of a desire to communicate, then language is dependent upon whom we want to communicate with. This means the environment you grow up in will heavily affect how well and how quickly you learn to talk...

It’s important to keep in mind that theories of language acquisition are just ideas created by researchers to explain their observations. How accurate these theories are to the real world is debatable. Language acquisition is a complicated process influenced by the genetics of an individual as well as the environment they live in.

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/processing-the-environment/language/a/theories-of-the-early-stages-of-language-acquisition

I think one way to think of what I consider a common and usual approach is to consider meaning primarily a matter of definition. To have a meaning is to be defined, as it were. I think one of the things the example brings out is the inadequacy of that model: I don't think our three year old would be able to define 'function', if asked. Nonetheless, she means something by it, or rather, she means something by her manner of employing it among a wider constellation of actions (a sad face, a whine in her tone, a stiffened grip on the blanket). — StreetlightX

Thanks for this example of what you consider 'a common and usual approach: 'To consider meaning primarily as a matter of definition'.
I am not sure how or why this would be common or usual. In whose world ?
What does 'Brexit means Brexit' mean ?

It seems clear that a simple definition does not encompass a variety of meanings attached to a word and how it is used.
So yes, it is inadequate.

Since posing that question, I delved into the murky world of philosophy of language. I had forgotten my frustration when studying a module related its theories, a long time ago.

I think I lean more to the approach as outlined in the penultimat para of the SEP article:

.

..Like the other views discussed here, the view that meaning is a product of social norms of this sort has a long history; it is particularly associated with the work of the later Wittgenstein and his philosophical descendants. (See especially Wittgenstein 1953.)

An important defender of this sort of view is Robert Brandom. On Brandom’s view, a sentence’s meaning is due to the conditions, in a given society, under which it is correct or appropriate to perform various speech acts involving the sentence. 
— Jeff Speaks

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/
And the follow up:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning-normativity/

However, I have not read enough. And, for sure, it seems any theory will have its inadequacies.
It does seem to align with my previous post where I said:

"We learn by our interactions with others and our environment.
I guess it's the progression from passive to active learning that leads to understanding.
When we recognise what we understand and what we do not."

The problem that arises in my mind is how this normative approach might fail to consider the genius and originality of creative expression.

Thanks for thought provoking thread.

But it isn't a copying of the context. Or rather, it is a projection of the context; a decision made that this context is the same as the other context, itself a novelty. — StreetlightX

Yes. It is not a copy of the original context. How could It be ? It is a reformulation adapted to suit the needs of the child.
If 'our usual approaches' - whatever they are - do not include this aspect , then no wonder some might see this as a 'novelty'.
The child used it, as appropriate, in her/his own context.
What is surprising here ?

how language works, and in a way that questions some of our usual approaches to the subject.
— StreetlightX

What are our usual approaches to the subject ? — Amity

And how did the story question how language works ?

I repeat the question since it interests me. I have noted Baden's suggestion.
There must be more examples of approaches...

But how does that get turned into understanding? After-all, neither a [arrot nor current AI can make that transition. What is about human children that imitation leads to them learning how to use words? — Marchesk

How does anything get turned into understanding ?
The learning process. The ability to learn is possessed by humans, animals and possibly some machines.
We learn by our interactions with others and our environment.
I guess it's the progression from passive to active learning that leads to understanding.
When we recognise what we understand and what we do not.
We can develop such understanding by play and role playing which aids in the development of thinking and language skills.

At least that's my take. What do you think ?

But this is not a case of that. The whole trust of the story is that the child has used the phrase in a new way, one that specifically doesn't simply parrot the parent. — StreetlightX

Yes. It is not only a parroting of the words alone but an imitation or copying of the behaviour and context in which the parent used it. Body language if you like. I agree with Wallows.

Well, I believe that the child understands the context of the word "function" by the verbal tone/pitch and whatnot along with the intension of the speech act by her mother in the story. — Wallows

:up:

Hanna Pitkin relates a charming little story which I think that alot to teach us about how language works, and in a way that questions some of our usual approaches to the subject. — StreetlightX

Lovely story but I'm not sure that it teaches us anything we didn't know already.
A child learns to speak by imitation. Echoing. Parroting.

The trouble is when aping affects political thoughts, absurd behaviour and voting patterns.

To be sure, Trump is ‘telling it like it is’ for those who believe what he says. For those who disagree with his views, the ‘like it is’ is a racist, fascist, Islamophobic, narrow-minded, and essentially false perception of reality. — Halim Shebaya

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tells-it-like-it-is_b_9836974

Trump 'tells it like it is'.
This phrase is repeated ad nauseam whenever someone is asked why they voted for him.
Combined with the media who do not 'tell it like it is' - the repeated 'Fake News' - this language is powerful as a way of looking at the world and people; 'feelings, actions and consequences'.

And the 'world' it looked at was not just a collection of objects... [but] included people, and their feelings and actions, and consequences". And this, understandably, is precisely the kind of thing A.I. can struggle with. — StreetlightX

Sometimes, I think AI would be preferable to our robotic and moronic reactions and responses.
If it were possible to implant a linguistic logical process whereby people can think with greater care, would we do it - if it were for the good of the many - to counteract stupidity and lessen hostility - would our world become safer, more secure?

Interesting topic

how language works, and in a way that questions some of our usual approaches to the subject. — StreetlightX

What are our usual approaches to the subject ?

[ An aside

I'm wallowing through it slowly. — Wallows

'Slow and steady wins the race'
But, as usual, there is an opposite:
'Time & tide waits for none'

We have plenty of time to navigate our way through this text, with a little help from our friends.
I quite like Tim's favourite quote: 'Be easy!' ]

[ Interesting and inspiring to hear different takes on the text; the interaction between readers who offer
the subjective ( opinion and comment) as well as objective matters, such as text and background. Making connections. It encourages active reading, keeping certain questions in mind ( as discussed earlier).

The latest on para 7 in particular - speaks to me: 'The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, and love itself are all the bait required to awaken the craving to bite. What is supposed to sustain and extend the wealth of that substance is not the concept, but ecstasy, not the cold forward march of the necessity of the subject matter, but instead a kind of inflamed inspiration.'

I asked earlier : What difference would it make if a translation uses 'general' as opposed to 'universal' ?
This might have been motivated by 'inflamed passion' and less of a 'cold forward march' but it can help progress an understanding. Most questions do.

What difference does it make if a translation uses 'Notion' instead of 'Concept' ?
The Hegel Glossary has both. It directs to Miller's translation as Notion.
We need to consider both, I think. As part of the dialectic which Hegel celebrates.

I think it helps to shape or firm up own thoughts, even as it might shake up and confuse. As we read this, it will no doubt inspire different directions of thought. Are we to dismiss this as 'opinion' ? I think not.
Sometimes, in posts, it is not easy to separate out readings from individual speculation.
When taking notes, I find it helpful to distinguish own thoughts or questions by use of [ ].
I will do this here.

Finally, I am taking time out to return to the Translator's Notes to understand the reasons for word choices. In Pinkard pdf this is on p38. And yes, I might even look at 'The Conclusion of the Book'.

What is it all about, Alfie? ]

'What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
Or are we meant to be kind?'
- Burt Bacharach

He's having a bad day, — Wallows

Who you gonna call ? Hanover ? :kiss:

Cheers Wallows, are you reading the Preface?

Signing off on the extraneous stuff to focus on text.
Apologies to Tim if my entries are seen as just the kind of 'noise' you were hoping to avoid.
Back to the Preface, armed with Glossary.

The preface is about one tenth of the book so if you go at that pace you’ll be done by late 2020. If you were at university you’d be expected to sum it up the main points AND have a depth of understanding (usually parroting what others have said). — I like sushi

The thread is only about the Preface.
So, we are following Tim as leader of a group discussion.
As usual, readers are at various stages, levels of ability, and go at a pace which suits them.
Tim has set the general pace. It is his thread. So, people can either catch up, keep up, or keep ahead and comment at appropriate point.

As such, it isn't really helpful 'to cut to the meaning' by starting in the middle.
But hey, setting rules or guidelines, means some like to revolt and break 'em...
It makes for haphazard and incomplete understanding. Not usually the aim of a university course.

Kaufman notes here that the German word for concept is "Begriff,.. closely related to begreifen (to comprehend),,,
— tim wood

Yes, but this needs to be understood within the whole, that is, it is comprehensive in the double sense of comprehend and inclusive of the subject matter as both subject and object together. See my comments about on #3. — Fooloso4

The Hegel Glossary from Sebastian Gardner is useful here. Gives different translations and thoughts from Miller, Inwood, Solomon, Geraets et al, Kainz.

Excerpt from CONCEPT ( Begriff)
...

,..When Hegel speaks of the Concept, he sometimes just means concepts in general, but he also uses it to mean, per Solomon, the most adequate conception of the world as a whole...
Solomon...the Concept...has the force of 'our conception of concepts'...may also refer to the process of conceptual change...since for Hegel the identity of concepts is bound up with dialectical movement... — Sebastian Gardner

Forgive the backtracking ... — I like sushi

Actually, I don't think this unusual in any reading.
I am thinking of starting at the end :wink:

Yes. If done well, it is time consuming and other things take priority. I think some will have read the Preface before and so have a major head start. I will see how things go...

Good Luck with the new job :smile:

Actually I am going to bow out. — Wayfarer

Any particular reason?
I felt the same way yesterday.

Hegel index of terms pdf can be downloaded straight from Google search.
There are only 4 pages which I have printed off.

Hegel: Glossary (from Sebastian Gardner) It is extremely useful to...

SCIENCE ( Wissenschaft)
In Hegel, Science refers not to natural science but to philosophical knowledge, which must be in a systematic, articulate form. Thus it refers to his own philosophy. The Phenomenology was originally to be titled 'Science of the Experience of Consciousness'.

Also, a free downloadable dictionary: by Glenn Alexander Magee

www.scribd.com/doc/69965769/Hegel-Dictionary

Edit to add:
Pinkard has a Glossary of Translated Terms
German to English
English to German
In book - p475
In pdf - p522

I would be interested to know if it is 'geist' that is translated as 'spirit', and also if the 'science' that Hegel is referring to, could be understood as the German term Geisteswissenschaften, usually translated as 'sciences of the spirit' (a set of human sciences such as philosophy, history, philology, musicology, linguistics, theater studies, literary studies, media studies, and sometimes even theology and jurisprudence, that are traditional in German universities.) — Wayfarer

Good question but, as yet, unanswered. I wonder why that would be the case? I think it important that we ask that kind of question. This text warrants such attention. So...

Are there particular questions we should have in mind as we read the Preface? What process, if any, do you use in an attempt to understand ?
I am wondering about noting key words or phrases which might hold the key to the sense of the paragraph.
What difference would it make if a translation uses 'general' as opposed to 'universal' ?
And is the word being used in a technical v ordinary language sense ?
Which words or phrases are important to Hegel's whole philosophy ?
Does he give any explicit definitions of key terms and their relationship to each other ?

Part of the reading process is about such identification.
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~rburch/PhilosphicalText.html#long

Wayfarer, are you still reading the Preface ?

To avoid the risk of doing the same I will hold off. — Fooloso4

I hope you will continue to give your understanding of selected text.
I don't expect that a full explication is what is required for a forum discussion ?
I appreciated our discussion re para 2.
Thank you.

I don't claim to have thought it through. Having the text up seems convenient. Nor do I feel it appropriate to hog the "commentary." I'm hoping more folks will jump in. At the same time, if taken in small bites, it may turn out to be not-so-mysterious. And anyone can add more of the paragraphs. I hope if they do, they'll try to maintain the format. — tim wood

It would perhaps be wise to slow down. Take the time, as group leader, to read and think carefully before using the para as the basis for a group discussion,

This is not about 'hogging the commentary'.

To understand any book or text requires first that it be read - and understood. That's the task of this thread, and that is the only task of this thread! Opinions and arguments are not welcome! Exception: given a reading, if someone can add light or improve on - or correct - the explication given, then they're very welcome. Or if anyone wants to add their own parallel "reading," also welcome. — tim wood

Fooloso4 asks a reasonable and relevant question given your approach as stated in OP.

So what is your take on this? Just quoting the whole of paragraph does not seem productive since the text is readily available. — Fooloso4

It seemed clear that you hoped to give an explication of the Preface, paragraph by paragraph.
Then others were welcome to join in. This included anyone who wished to add a parallel 'reading'.
Just putting a paragraph out there, as a full quote, is not what was expected. A simple reference is enough so that people can follow your explication.

Explication:
'The idea and practice of explicate or explication is rooted in the verb to explicate, which concerns the process of "unfolding" and of "making clear" the meaning of things, so as to make the implicit explicit. The expression of "explication" is used in both analytic philosophy and literary theory'. Wikipedia

What is a philosophical explication ? Why is It carried out ?

To explicate means literally to "fold out." The task is to unfold the meaning of the passage in context and to come to some assessment of its importance and its truth

To encourage the student to read actively. At its best, active reading is a process of critical appropriation, that is, a process of making the text 'properly one's own' by investigating its meaning and truth, ultimately with a view to how the position articulated in the text accords with or differs from, challenges or confirms, the constellation of your own fundamental philosophical beliefs and assumptions.

https://sites.ualberta.ca/~rburch/PhilosphicalText.html#short
— Robert Burch

Ahh German. My bad. — Hanover

Dummkopf, Schmoommkopf, Donner and Blitzen.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Gaelic — Hanover

Gaelic Schmaelic :roll:

See what I'm saying Pookie Wookie Shmookie? — Hanover

See you Jimmy - yer heid's fou o' mince.
Ye need tee haud yer wheesht and skedaddle aff, ya bampot ye.

Seriously tho' - ah luvs ya, ma wee Tootsie, Wootsie, Schmootzie :love:

On the question of Grice and Humour.
I haven't watched this yet - but might be fun...

Watch "11: Layers of meaning - Cooperation, humour, and Gricean Maxims (Intro to Pragmatics)" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/dw46d7I9AEs

I can debate you on that.
But no, seriously, I get what you're saying. They don't call it "The Comedy Forum" for a reason. — MrCrowley

Bring it on Mr.Crowley. Let's see what you got.
Welcome to TPF :smile:

Cooperative and gentle humor would be if perhaps you were having a hard day, so I pushed your nose and said "Pookie is gonna be ok" in a baby voice. That'd cheer you right up. — Hanover

:rofl:
Oh yeah, baby. That would do it. For sure.
If that has worked for you and partner in real life, then fantastico :cool:

Alternatively, you could tell a joke. Distract and deliver.

A man asks, “God, why did you make woman so beautiful?” God responded, ”So you would love her.” The man asks, “But God, why did you make her so dumb?” God replied, “So she would love you.”

http://www.laughfactory.com/jokes/sexist-jokes

Handle humour with great care !

Both humor experts offer caveats about the study and the value of humor. Using jokes to boost moods works better if the situation that put you in the bad mood is not extremely personal, Kuhn says. If someone's loved one was just diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, for instance, making a joke that they should just "forget about it" would not go over well -- the situation is too personal, he says.

Your mood can't be so bad that the funniest joke in the world couldn't lift your spirits, he says. "You have to be in the mood to play," Kuhn says. "You have to be willing to participate in the joke to get the benefit out of it."

https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20090820/good-jokes-cure-bad-moods

I think that a Cooperative aspect is that you need to get a feel whether something will work for that person, given the circumstances. Otherwise a not so gentle jab to the genitals might be the response to your jokey gesture :joke:
Of course, that might be just what you are looking for ? :gasp:

Thanks. I think the meaning of para 2. is clearer to me.
So, philosophical systems have grown organically. The organic development of thought, if tended well and each part given its due consideration, should lead to a more complete and comprehensive understanding?
Is that about right ?

3. Those who demand both such explanations and their satisfactions may well look as if they are really in pursuit of what is essential. (Pinkard)

3. Demanding and Supplying these [superficial] explanations passes readily enough as a concern with what is essential. (Miller) — Fooloso4

Thanks for the direct comparison. Confirmed my choice of Pinkard as a more natural read. For me.
I don't think it matters which online book is used. The great thing is that they are free and readily accessible to all.