We now reach stage five, at which Y supposes not that X is engaged in play, but that what X is doing is trying to get Y to believe or accept that X is in pain: that is, trying to get Y to believe in or accept the presence of that state in X which the produced behavior, when produced nonvoluntarily, is in fact a natural sign of, naturally means.

More specifically, one might say that at stage five creature Y recognizes that creature X in the first place intends that Y recognize the production of the sign of pain (of what is usually the sign of pain) to be voluntary, and further intends that Y should regard this first intention as being a sufficient reason for Y to believe that X is in pain; and that X has these intentions because he has the additional further intention that Y should not merely have sufficient reason for believing that X is in pain, but should actually believe it.

Whether or not in these circumstances Y will not merely recognize that X intends, in a certain rather queer way, to get Y to believe that X is in pain, whether Y not only recognizes this but actually goes on to believe that X is in pain, would presumably depend on a further set of conditions which can be summed up under the general heading that Y should regard X as trustworthy in one or another of perhaps a variety of ways. For example, suppose Y thinks that, cither in general or at least in this type of case, X would not want to get Y to believe that X is in pain unless X really were in pain. Suppose also (this would perhaps not apply to a case of pain but might apply to the communication of other states) that Y also believes that X is trust-worthy, not just in the sense of not being malignant, but also in the sense of being, as it were, in general responsible, for example, being the sort of creature who takes adequate trouble to make sure that what he is trying to get the other creature to believe is in fact the case, and who is not careless, negligent, or rash. Then, given the general fulfillment of the idea that Y regards X either in general or in this particular case as being trustworthy in this kind of competent, careful way, one would regard it as rational not only for Y to recognize these intentions on the part of X, that Y should have certain beliefs about X's being in pain, but also for Y actually to pass to adopting these beliefs.

So far I have been talking about the communication of the idea that something is the casc, for example, that X is in pain or some other state, by means of a nondeceptive simulation on the part of the communicating creature of the standard signs or indices of such a state. But the mechanism that has been used, involving the interchange of beliefs or intentions of different orders, really does not require that what is taken as the communication vehicle should be initially a natural expression or sign of the state of affairs being com-municated. If we now relax this requirement, we get to stage six, the road to which may be eased by the following reflection, for which l am indebted to Judith Baker.

In relation to the particular example which I have been using, to reach the position ascribed to it in stage five, Y would have to solve, bypass, or ignore a possible problem presented by X's behavior: why should X produce what is not a genuine but a faked expression of pain if what X is trying to get Y to believe is that X is in pain? Why not just let out a natural bellow? Possible answers are not too hard to come by: for example, that it would be unmanly, or otherwise uncrea-turely, for X to produce naturally a natural expression of pain, or that X's nonnatural production of an expression of pain is not to be supposed to indicate every feature which would be indicated by a natural production (the nonnatural emission, for example, of a loud bellow might properly be taken to indicate pain, but not that degree of pain which would correspond with the decibels of the particular emission).

This problem would not, however, arise if X's performance, instead of being something which, in the natural case, would be an expression of that state of X which (in the nonnatural case) it is intended to get Y to believe in, were rather something more loosely connected with the state of affairs (not necessarily a state of X) which it is intended to convey to Y; X's performance, that is, would be suggestive, in some recognizable way, of the state of affairs