From: jongausib <so.cool.ogi@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Cc: John E Clifford <kali9pu= tra@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] What's real; about the semantic scope= of {zasti} and {fatci}

Den l=F6rdagen den 8:e december 2012 kl. = 01:02:13 UTC+1 skrev clifford:
Oy!
1. {fatci} applies to propositions, basically saying t= hat they are really true (independent of any belief schemes, etc, which {je= tnu} allows). That is a totally separate issue from existence and bei= ng (in the present context) but is related to {fasnu}, in that propositions= describing events that fasnu are fatci and conversely mutatis mutandis.&nb= sp; Every cult is entitled to its own jetnu but not its own fatci. Although, I am inclined to think of facts as = events, not propositions (when I distinguish them)

Ok. but do you agree that = the words =94in the ab= solute=94 in the definition for {fatci} signals that {fatci} shouldn't be used lightly in everyday contexts, but rather a word used in philosophical and religious discussions and such. Perhaps add some clarification/warning in the notes f= or {fatci}. For fact in the ordinary sense it would be better to use {jetnu= } or {jetfau} for fact as a true event, don't you think?
<= br>I think "in the absolute" is there simply to say that it is independent = of anyone's metaphysics (or, in Lojban, epistemology). In USA today t= erms (sorry for local reference) {fatci} is for science, evidence, Democrat= s, and {jetnu}, if applicable at all, is for cults, delusion and Republican= s. The notion of a true event is ill-formed, since truth is a propert= y of propositions, but I understand the point. Speaking as a Philosophy pro= f (retired) and theologian, I find the notion that there is something more = serious about the claims in these fields to be at least funny, possibly pit= iable.

2.{zasti} applies to things (in the very broad Lojb= anic sense) in general, but it is only another predicate among many, so it = is specified (in a given world, but lets stay out of that) by its extension, the things that exist.= But, in the universe of discourse, the things talked about (that are= references for terms in the language in use), there may be any number of t= hings which are not in the extension of {zasti}, that don't exist but may still be picked up by, in p= articular, quantified variables. This notion of existence is ge= nerally frowned upon in philosophy outside of logic classes, but is pretty = standard otherwise: we have no trouble talking about Sherlock Holmes or eve= n unicorns without feeling committed to their existence,; we even quantify = over them in ordinary speech.
=

For Descartes, the primary characteristic of ma= tter is extension, just as the primary characteristic of mind is consciousn= ess. So if extension is a necessary condition for existence, then the consc= ious mind does not exist?
I would say that it is possible for a lot of = abstract things without extension to {zasti}. For example, The problem of universals is an ancient problem= in metaphysics about whether universals (in lojban expressed with {ka}) exist.

For this reason I would like to construct lujvos with a = more precise meaning, so it is clear in which sense you use the word "exist= ", and let the gismu {zasti} have the broader semantic scope.

The= refore my proposal for {zasti} is this:

* delete =93x_{1
is physical (one sense)=94 in the notes for {zasti}. For some people
(like me), non-physical things are possible to exist.=20}

* add =94Exists physically/is real (one sense) (=3D dairza'i). <= span>Is real/non-fictional (=3Dnalfi'aza'i). Is realistic (one sense) (=3Dnalfi'azatmlu)=94 in the notes for {zasti}.

{zasti} ought not = be restricted to physical objects, but also ought not be extended to imagin= ary ones. That is, it is between "physical" (or even "empirical" or "= scientific") and "being" or "Being".

3. Saying that language doesn't have a= say in what is real is deciding the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (several caveat= s here), which is one of the things Lojban is supposed to test, so we don't= want to settle matters too early on.
4. {xanri} is possibly somet= hing else again, in that the imaginary for one person may be real for anoth= er -- or for the one at another time. This a psychological more than = a factual matter.

I agree. And also, the referent of what person= x does imagine is xanri x1, and may not exist other than as the mental ent= ity itself ({pensi}, {sidbo}, {menli pruce} etc).

But may exist ({xa= sti}) for all that.

5. Lojban doesn't have a word for being in the general sense, except, in exte= nsion, the All. Doing Lojban metatheory in Lojban is occasionally a p= ain.

(being) =94an extremely broad concept encompassing su= bjective and objective features of reality and existence=94 (wikipedia).

A very b= road conecept of existence sounds for me as {zasti}. My proposal is ther= efore to add "/(to be)" in the definition for {zasti}.
And/or use mo= re sepcific philosophical terms for being, like german "dasein", as fu'ivla= .

Nope. That will screw up the metalanguage too much. Th= ere are things that don't exist in Lojban (at least possibly -- and, in fac= t, often).
<= div>

<= div style=3D"font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:= 12pt;">

= From: jongausib <so.co...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@google= groups.com
Sent: F= riday, December 7, 2012 8:49 AM
Su= bject: [lojban] What's real; about the semantic scope of {zasti}= and {fatci}

coi,

I've been reading the BPFK section about gismu issues, but I've got a lot of questions about gismu definitions for which I didn't find any good answers on this page. For example:

=94What is real?=94 isn't exactly a question for the language to answer, but since I'm studying philosophy I've been concerned with what the words {zast= i}, {fatci}, {da}, {xanri} and others refer to precisely. (Sorry for long winded post)

I interpret {zasti} to be a very relative concept (and {fatci} to be an extremely anti-relativistic concept). {zasti} is about what the speaker (or some other x2) mean by =94exists/is real/actual/reality=94 under some given metaphysics x3. This could be a lot of different things, according to Wikipedia:

1) (exist) something =94in the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses=94
and that persists independently in one's absence=94.

2) (exist) =94everything that 'is', or more simply, everything=94

3) (exist) =94everything that most people believe in=94

4) (real) =94the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.=94

5) (real) =94wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible=94

6) (real) =94often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain.=94

7) (real) =94often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.=94

8) (fact) =94something that has really occurred or is actually the case =94

9) (fact) =94Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers.=94

10) (absolute) =94unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence=94

12) (absolute) =93In East Asia, the concept of the Tao, and in South Asia, the concept of Nirvana is synonymous in description to the attributes of the Absolute as used in the West.=94

11) (being) =94an extremely broad concept encompassing subjective and objective features of reality and existence=94

So when do we use {zasti} and when do we use {fatci}?

Could you please look at my examples below, and see if you think they are right? And please, don't get stuck in some philosophical discussion, but just correct me if my semantic and grammar seems to be wrong.

lo pa sance be lo pa tricu poi farlu cu zasti mi va'o je va'onai lo nu mi tirna sy [def 1]

roda cu zasti [def 2]

zasti zo'u ro me lo se krici be loi so'e prenu [def 3]

simlu fa roda poi bartu lo menli po'e mi zi'e poi dacti ja menli ku'o zasti ije ku'i mi na ka'enai djuno le du'u xukau la'edi'u cu ca'a zasti ijenai mi djuno le du'u xukau la'edi'u cu fatci [def 4]

se'o lo li'i sanji senva pe mi cu zmadu ro lo li'i cikna lo ka zasti fi la gnosis .i xu cu'u do la'edi'u na fatci paunai

pe'i lo pa gusta poi bazu se zbasu pu'i lo nu fanmo lo bu'u munje cu zasti va'o ca ri cu jetnu .i lo xanri be la'edi'u cu ca ku'i zasti .i xu ku'i go'e cu fatci [def 5 och 6]

su'o lo orko zasti la l=E9golas lo cfika pe fi'i la t=F3lki,en .i ku'i xu lo go'i cu na na'e xanri zasti [def 7]

ma xe fanva zo'oi la nirvanas fe la lojban .i xu la'edi'u drani se danfu cu lu lo ka fatci li'u .a lu lo za'i fatci li'u .a lu loi roda fatci

xu loi ka prami cu zasti na'ebo lo sucta noi .i xu loi ka prami cu fatci .i va'i xu loi ka prami cu me da=20

I don't know if I have been able to show any inconsistencies, but my suggestion is to put {fatci} and {zasti} on the =93BPFK: gismu issues=94.

Proposal:

* add =93/is a being=94 in the definition for {zasti}, and add =93be=94 as a keyword and =93being=94 as a placeword (x1).

* delete =93x_{1
is physical (one sense)=94 in the notes for {zasti}. For some people
(like me), non-physical things are possible to exist.=20}

* add =94Exists physically/is real (one sense) (=3D dairza'i). <= span>Is real/non-fictional (=3Dnalfi'aza'i). Is realistic (one sense) (=3Dnalfi'azatmlu)=94 in the notes for {zasti}.

* In my opinion, the words =94in the absolute=94 in the definition for {fatci} signals that {fatci} shouldn't be used lightly in everyday contexts, but rather a word used in philosophical and religious discussions and such. Perhaps {jetfau}, or just x1 of jetnu, should be a more common word for fact?

mu'omi'e jongausib

PS: One last thing, what do you think is the appropriate lujvo for ontology? {zatske} or {facyske}, or perhaps {terzatske}?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/ msg/lojban/-/5ll8SAKZd9oJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/ group/lojban?hl=3Den.