Re: [jboske] factivity of nu

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> 
> At 03:56 AM 1/14/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:

> >If the BF were to find that CLL does not clearly prescribe your views
> >on nu, and consequently calls them into question, would you come up
> >with reasons why it is better that nu is +noematic than -noematic?
> >I'm curious as to whether you do have reasons, though things are so
> >hectic at the moment that actually spelling out those reasons might
> >best be left till a future time (or till never, if the BF never
> >considers the issue).

Essentially because "to be is to be the value of a variable" (Quine).
It seems simpler and easier to me to live in a world in which events
can be manipulated by strictly extensional predicates without worrying
about whether the event reflects what really happened or not:
"Caesar being killed in the Forum" is no worse and no better, qua event,
than "Brutus being killed in the Forum".

> I have no idea what noematic means, and a dictionary definition gives no 
> clue to me what +/-noematic would mean ...

Something is noematic if it transcends time and space; for example,
numbers, sets, properties, propositions. According to me, events also.

> But fasnu and xanri then got paired as "special" at another 
> point which involves possible worlds. 

Actually, xanri wound up being si'o-based rather than nu-based, and has
an x2 place for the imaginer.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
.e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org