From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 02 16:03:57 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1tbV-0001bG-9G for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:37 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H1tbN-0001b3-Qd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:36 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so4842434uge for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:28 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=F5Kx7rET7kEbdYoWJAGo9Ard/XF9Rw3AxrFHqrzU1ZjIANuz9gHL26d+g64VouQeSv4AnWdkvhErY+JwYGKTdje66ei8eIPP3nCR94RpeDm+oejdWnqpkm6UkEjg+e5+RGCaBRe5AALh/RFf/6Sh7NM2Ca7RE/QjhUDWf5Ja3DY= Received: by 10.78.204.7 with SMTP id b7mr2077328hug.1167782608083; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from thebee ( [66.227.87.65]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y18sm20002566hua.2007.01.02.16.03.26; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:03:27 -0800 (PST) From: "M@" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Mass Lojban Conversion Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:03:23 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c72eca$97602300$6601a8c0@hq.squarei.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AccuvIrBQ32LBbQ0RDWYddfG7OBHqgACQBdA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Score-Int: -22 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13458 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matthew.dunlap@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list -----Original Message----- From: Matt Arnold I disagree. One of the most serious problems with critical thinking skills is the failure to have operating definitions for one's terms. It is difficult to answer a question if I don't know the meaning of the words used in the question. Then I literally don't know what I'm asking, which means "I don't know what I'm talking about" is true in the literal sense of that phrase. "I don't know what I'm talking about" is a very different phrase from "I don't know what I'm thinking about". It's important to differentiate between communication and thinking. Case in ironic point, consider the original phrase, "...you vaguely know what you are thinking about." Taken literally the second half is obviously redundant because at their essence the only difference between "think" and "know" is the level of confidence (ie. vaguely know == think). Taken figuratively (or more accurately, taken as if the "you are thinking" was meant to be "someone is talking") it is more meaningful, and maybe (note the evidence of ambiguity marker there) what he was thinking. But that's really the key: he (critically) knew what he meant even though the communication phase/language was ambiguous. --M@ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.