From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Feb 13 13:21:28 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from f37.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.37] helo=hotmail.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18jQnP-0001aI-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:21:27 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:20:57 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:20:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] From: "Jorge Llambias" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: tanru/lujvo for [name] type of thing? Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:20:57 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2003 21:20:57.0449 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC8A8590:01C2D3A5] X-archive-position: 112 X-Approved-By: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la ian cusku di'e >>>.i zo censa selbo'e fi le skeci'e na.e le lijdyci'e po'e >>>(holy vs. (unholy or secular or whatever) is a difference that science is >>>blind to and religion alone can make) > >>What would go in x3? "Unholy"? That sounds wrong. "Neither >>holy nor unholy"? > >Well, here we see how sense is made from this first observation. The first >observation made a distinction and named one side of the distinction as >"holy". Now, additional observations can be linked to either side of this >observation, and your observation just draws a distinction in the unmarked >space of the starting observation and marked it "unholy", then a further >distinction is drawn (between "sounding wrong" and something unnamed) and >then you ask for the name of a side of still another distinction with the >other side named "neither holy nor unholy". I'm afraid I'm confused. I was talking about the ellipsized x3 in your first sentence. Presumably you meant to say that for every possible observation, the tag "holy" can be applied not by science but only by religion. But "unholy" and "neither holy not unholy" are also religion-only tags, aren't they? Is x3 for tags that in a given observation could be applied but are not? >>Another way of saying it might be: >> >>la saske cu pajni le du'u xukau jetnu enai le du'u xukau melbi >>Science determines whether something is true, not whether it is >>beautiful. > >Explain "pajni" ;-) What do you mean by "explain"? ;) >>>.i la brode ganlo ciste goi ko'a cu velbo'e da poi ko'a ka'e velbo'e ke'a >>>ku'o de poi ko'a na ka'e velbo'e ke'a .ijanai ko'a velbo'e lu'e ko'a >>> >>>(The operationally closed system observes the difference of observations >>>it can make vs. those it can not make. If it can't do that It can't refer >>>to itself) >> >>Shouldn't you have {le terfrica be da poi ... bei de poi ...} >>in the x2? In other words, in a closed system the difference >>between observables and non-observables is observable. > >Both sides are observable. But only one side of an observation gets marked >in communication. "Apples vs. Oranges" is already two observations that are >linked. I included the X3 so I can make this type of link to observations >of the unmarked state of this observation. Your sentence is actually a step >further than my sentence. My sentence was just an attempt to translate your English. You said "the operationally closed system observes the difference of observations it can make vs. those it can not make". That does not seem to correspond to your lojban, which seems to say that "the system tags what it tags, and it could but doesn't tag what it can't tag". >I described an observation and a link to another observation and your >observation draws a difference between the difference of in my sentence and >something else (and it should actually be "lu'e le terfrica" or better >even: "lu'e le velbo'e"). But Yes! You can say that. Velbo'e are like that >;-) I'm afraid I'm still in the dark as to the use of x3. >And your observation is actually a step between my observation and: le >velbo'e cu velbo'e lu'e ri (without pois): > >.i le velbo'e cu velbo'e da de >.i le velbo'e cu velbo'e lu'e le velbo'e be da bei de >.i le velbo'e cu velbo'e lu'e ri > >The symbol for the system is the symbol for it's observations of what it >can observe vs. what it can not observe. And that symbol only works when >this observation of observations is stable and repeatable and rather >independent of the systems environment. Is x3 the symbol for something that the system cannot observe, or the symbol for something that the system could but does not observe? You seem to go from one to the other. For a given observation (let's say that I observe an apple) and a given tag (let's say "apple") what can I say? {le nu mi zgana le plise cu brode zo plise ma} My observing the apple is a Luhmann-observation with tag "apple" and tag-of-non-observed what? >>Otherwise you are saying that closed systems observe what >>they observe against what they don't observe, but every system >>supposedly does that, doesn't it? I may be misunderstanding >>your x3. > >Not everything that is called a system really is an operationally closed >system (that's especially true for most "system" talk in the humanities). >Not every closed system can observe that it only observes what it can >observe and at the same time be able to observe that there are things it >can not observe. Show me a non-social or non-mental system that can develop >a symbol for "transcendent" and use this symbol in the process of >identifying itself. The definition of brode allows this. Are you saying that velbo'e only applies to closed systems? Is science a velbo'e? Can it observe that there are things it cannot observe? >From the definition of brode in lojban this is so obvious. But from the >definition the velbo'e is already operationally closed. I can't comment on that as I don't as yet understand your definition of brode. >I am a bit of a Luhmann freak and I have even taught Systems Theory for a >semester (the best student-job I ever had), but even I was surprised how >simple and cheap this looks when you build just ONE definition in Lojban. I >have not really started yet, and already made so much look so simple. I >think learning Lojban and then studying Theory of Social Systems in Lojban >might be much easier and quicker than learning the theory in your own >natural Language. Perhaps you could give a couple of examples with all four places of brode filled up. It doesn't look so simple to me, but I don't know much about systems theory. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail