From jim@uazu.net Thu Aug 23 07:47:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jim@uazu.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 14:47:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 3809 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net) (194.217.242.89) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 14:42:47 -0000 Received: from aguazul.demon.co.uk ([158.152.135.59] helo=tiger) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15Zvgz-000O3d-0V for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:42:46 +0100 Received: from jim by tiger with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15ZvSx-0000NZ-00 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:15 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:15 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u Message-ID: <20010823152815.A1199@uazu.net> Mail-Followup-To: lojban References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from arosta@uclan.ac.uk on Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:00:36PM +0100 From: Jim Peters X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9981 And Rosta wrote: > Without wanting to rehash or reopen old but unsolved debates, it > creates known logicophilosophical problems when we say talk about > individuals that don't exist in this world, by saying that they have > certain properties in this world. I'm not saying that this creates > nonsense ... but at the same time we DO want some way to make it > clear when we are talking about something that does exist in this > world Depends what you mean by world. The world I live in, my reality, is made up of everything I perceive, everything I've experienced, which is what {li'i} seems to be connected with (having just checked the RefGram). Regarding Sherlock Holmes (resident of Baker St, right ?), reading the stories about him gave me an experience, and so Sherlock Holmes is now part of my world, as he was part of an experience of mine. I have memories from Sherlock Holmes' world just the same as I have memories from my own life. The separation between {li'i} and {si'o} seems very useful to me. My experience of the world is built purely on my own direct perceptions - not on what I think might have happened to me, or what other people might have thought happened to me. It's a very first-person thing. We are often so involved with our thoughts that we take them for reality, when they are in fact a side-effect and derivative of our direct perceptions. Strangely, the moment I decided to reply to this post, a large butterfly fluttered in the window - the first time a butterfly has ever come in here that I remember in 7 years. I think it may have been a red admiral - although it's a long time since I looked at a butterfly book. I helped it find its way back out the window. Now I just have to figure out the connection between my wish to convey the magic of a reality bigger than the physical world, and the magical gift of a visit from (for me) a rare butterfly. Is this the world helping me make my point ? The big thing is that my reality is probably very different to the next person's reality, and trying to cut everyone's reality down to the same size is going to be very painful and limiting. > Now, returning to li'i, the experience exists in the real world but > the event the experiencer perceives themselves to have experienced > does not. No, it's the other way around. The experience only exists in the perceiver. The `event' might exist in some shared world (for example, "physical reality") if someone else experienced it and the two can agree on a few features of the event (at the very least). If only I experienced it, it only exists in my world - but I can tell you about it and you can experience a sense of it too, perhaps. If this is all irrelevant nonsense, please ignore - Jim -- Jim Peters (_)/=\~/_(_) Uazú (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) jim@ (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) www. uazu.net (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_) uazu.net