RE: [jboske] KS Kinds

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

I wrote:
> xorxes:
> > If I claim:
> > 
> > su'o xe ka gerku cu broda
> > At least some dog is broda
> > 
> > then I want to also be able to claim that the kind does:
> > 
> > ma'u se ka gerku cu broda
> > Mr Dog is broda
> > 
> > for any possible broda 
> > 
> > So what happens when "broda" is "xe ka gerku", "is an
> > instance of dog" 
> > 
> > su'o xe ka gerku cu xe ka gerku
> > At least one dog is (an instance of) a dog 
> > 
> > ma'u se ka gerku cu xe ka gerku
> > Mr Dog is (an instance of) a dog 
> > 
> > Is that correect? "Mr Dog" should satisfy the same predicates
> > that "some dog" satisfies 
> 
> That's right 

On further reflection, my answer is that I don't know. I would
like to think about it further to see if I think it is possible
to decide one way or another. But I'm not sure whether it is
our duty to resolve ontologicl paradoxes. I mean, Lojban 
allows us to talk about the set of all sets that don't contain
themselves, and we don't panic that that is a problem for
Lojban. And even if my amateur ontological musings satisfy me,
why should I expect anybody else to pay heed or be themself
satisfied?

--And.