From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Sat Aug 22 12:29:26 1992 Return-Path: Date: Sat Aug 22 12:29:26 1992 Message-Id: <9208221235.AA25184@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!vilva Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!VILVA Subject: Re: Lojban coffeeshop X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO >Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:09:31 -0400 >From: Logical Language Group >Subject: Lojban coffeeshop >Bowing to Veijo on the title, but preferring to keep subjects >understood. >In all the rampant discussion of this topic, of which I approve, i >ask that people remember that there are others interested in this >effort that are not on the net, and indeed they include the people >who wrote the coffeeshop description thus far, and proposed the >approach that I described in the initial message. >I'm going to ask that people not go too far away from the original >idea without getting their agreement (which I suspect is not too >likely), or the resentm,ent (already significant) of non-netters >toward the domiantion of Lojban by net people will grow, which noone >wants. [...] >Be that as it may, I recognize that most of the work will be done by >people on net, and we should take advantage of the opportunity for >rapid communication. But please be considerate of those who want to >particpate but cannot. I should like, on my part, assure that I have no intention what so ever of being instrumental in causing disputes within our ranks. Discussions we must have but we need the consensus to be able to go on. It is most unfortunate that we have this division into two subpopulations -- those who have the opportunities for personal contacts and brainstorming sessions at the LogFests and those who have the technological means of communication at their disposal (and then, of course, the fortunate few who have both). It is all too easy to envy the other party and feel left out of an essential part of the action. We ought to find out ways of settling the open questions so that no one's feelings get hurt. I certainly understand those of us who were at the LogFest and now feel that the net-people are trying to take over the whole Project utilizing their technological 'supremacy'. On the other hand, we who are, due to external factors unsurmountable, unable to attend the LogFests and are limited to electronic contacts, which -- though fast -- cannot compete with face-to-face contacts and classes, feel left out of the initial phase of the Project. Actually we were left a quite limited say in the formulation of the framework. The views I did present in my previous postings were ones I should have liked to present at the LogFest, I should have liked to have had my say at that time. Perhaps it would have made no difference in the outcome, but I should have felt differently. When I was writing the postings I recognized I was -- at least to an extent -- writing post factum. The writing was, however, necessary to find out just how much elbowroom I had. These postings (as quite many of my previous ones) must be taken with a pinch of salt. They are in a way a substitute for the process of thinking out loud in a class or a group working on a problem. The postings do contain errors and false starts which in a class would be corrected immediately. I am at least as much talking to myself as to others on the net -- but the process only works if I do send the messages out. I do hope that the people who feel left out of all the fun we on the net do have would try -- once in a while -- to imagine themselves sitting a couple of thousand kilometers from the nearest active fellow lojbo and having only the messages on the screen and the inevitable problems caused by widely differing timezones -- it's like being a semi-cyborg. I can imagine, on the other hand, the limitations of meeting others only, say, once a week and keeping all the ideas to yourself in the meantime and not hearing from the others or the goings-on (too few of us are still accustomed to writing real letters -- and remembering the state of postal services to-day I guess it wouldn't much help). I can think of being without the List (shudder). Of course it is a slightly different matter for me here in the middle of a figurative nowhere. The blip of an arriving message envelope is also a symbol of the contact with you others. Actually, we ought to have both the personal contacts and the advantages of modern technology but in a worldwide setting it can't be helped -- at the moment. The technology can be bought or arrangements made but for personal contacts we need local groups instead of the loners around the world. Couldn't a local group have common access to the net? All it takes is a PC with a modem and an account somewhere on the net. Quite many people do have PCs, so they could type their messages at home and take them on a floppy to the PC with the connection for delivery. That's the way I do it. Speaking of domination I think that in the long run the focus will have to shift more and more away from the US of A (or more exactly: defocus) as more and more people from elsewhere get involved. We are sure to have similar problems of two subcultures also elsewhere (This isn't, however, a problem which concerns only us lojbo -- it's a problem for the whole society). We will eventually have local groups all over the world (unless Lojban degrades into a theoretical exercise) and sooner or later these groups will also include lojbo with no access to the net. Then we will, hopefully, have resources for local projects and also people well versed in Lojban and its early literature, so we can afford a greater extent of diversity and be less dependent on the support of the whole Jbolaz. But for the time being we must learn to cultivate a deep regard for the sensibilities of all our fellow lojbo (and all our fellow human beings) and I do sincerely hope this attitude will be inherited by the future Jbonat. e'osai ko sarji la lojban co'omi'e vei,on --------- Again a couple of figurative names: la jbolaz. ( < lojbo lanzu) = the people tied together by Lojban la jbonat. ( < lojbo natmi) = the people with a Lojbanic cultural background I can't tell why I prefer 'jbo' to 'loj' in this context. Perhaps it gives the lujvo a certain distance from concreteness. Lojban is something quite concrete and 'la lojnat.' would feel too near to 'Lojbanic nation'. Theoretically, of course, there is no difference and the two are interchangeable. I'll leave it to others to decide whether these particular forms are preferable and whether these names are worth adoption to name the abstract entities in our writings. I think we have/will have the entities. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi