From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Feb 06 12:09:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 20:09:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 90538 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 20:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 20:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 21:10:20 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:53:09 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:08:55 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:08:49 +0000 To: xod , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5339 Xod: #On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: #> Thanks. I understand (maybe). I agree with pc, then, that there's a #> problem (and I also think that it is the "(me) la X" form (and the notio= n of #> reference) that is metaphysically faulty). # #Metaphysically faulty? It is metaphysically faulty to interpret "me la #foo." "as x1 is refered to as foo"? Doesn't it mean something more like "is Foo" or "has the individuating characteristics (haecceity) of Foo"? And then, as John has said, the problem is with Foo. "la xod" refers to a particular human-sized chunk of spacetime, but "la sherlock holmes" doesn't. [The metaphysical fault is in "la xod" referring to a particular human-size= d chunk of spacetime: I don't believe in reference.] --And.