Return-Path: From: "Arthur W. Protin Jr." (GC-ACCURATE) Date: Thu Jun 20 15:34:21 1991 To: Bob LeChevalier Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Message-Id: <9106201157.aa26475@COR4.PICA.ARMY.MIL> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jun 20 15:34:21 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Folks, I find this debate between Eric and Lojbab to be a partial proof of Eric's position. I find too much of what is said to be confused. Lojbab refers to my posting (which (I was pleasantly surprised to find) won the praise of Jimc as clarifying), and yet fails to use the distinctions that (I feel, at least) would help in discussing this matter. Lojbab says: > I also dare say that no human can drop out of loi remna, the mass of > all human society. This is exactly the usage that I reject. No human can drop out of the mass of all humanity, but any human can leave any society. The mass of all human society is the set of societies, and if you define a society to exist with only one member then any human who leaves a society froms a trivial society of one. If the definition of society requires more than one human, then Lojbab's statement is false! Based on the Enlish translation of Hilter's own work, "Mein Kampf", Hilter either lied about his reasoning or reasoned erroniously! I can only accept Lojbab's comment > I of course feel that decision was erroneous, but his conclusions > do logically follow from his assumptions. as a political maneuver to try to move the discussion to less emotional examples. The statement, however, may fail in that purpose because of its lack of technical merit. The ever repeated example of cells in the body is the most perfect example of what is NOT "massification". The body is not the mass of its cells, but an organism built of its cells. No cell understands the actions of the body. No cell is necessary to the body. No cell's condition, of itself, is important to the body. The body routinely destroys cells and replaces them. Cells may leave the body and become free agents. Cells may leave the body and form a new body. This is but a small partial list of the distinctions between the component cells and the body. This distinction if not a matter of size or diversity, but represents an entirely different level of organization. "Massification" ____________ represents no complexity of organization. "Massification" is the simple agregate. The distinction is between a bowl of "Alphabits" and the words of this posting. It is most definitely not true that: > The complexity of the mass is a [function] of its size and diversity > of components. A contracting firm is not an example of "massification"!!! It is an example of an "artificial" organism. To offer up both the contracting firm and snow as examples of "massification", is to introduce the kind of confusion that leads to invalid results. I HOPE THAT THIS DISTINCTION HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN LOST FROM LOJBAN Such a loss would surely ruin the language! thank you all, Art Protin Arthur Protin These are my personal views and do not reflect those of my boss or this installation.