From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBCu0tjhBBoEvCpd7w@googlegroups.com Thu Jul 08 12:38:49 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OWwvf-0004CG-6L; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:38:48 -0700 Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4sf2082741gyg.16 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :sender:received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=T5NRoKKkwnd7253NnynOSnX6rQd9DgFED5bzP1CFBRc=; b=Lwf2gozR4vHFrVYWLTbUh+hQEeQ3WvMPxX0Cwk3zBKQveEzx53P8+gvNMNaClfGcAY RY7UN//cujU8S7WTiG30tP2DcQBijsHb43ce+shK+hJ6gfK8so04bFHBdwfsDrOOI6lG MXSX8ndRWwpFMg2wR89LMvDtu1sEIPjdaZW4U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=HXfnxZu9DFbzS4BD8CeAi2oZ3+VGNGysRii+cuIhwrIcpp3UwkQRk8qBwUQhJ16/vy PBduCL4yX3VcpLIwTGCteW+dTkW4McN/t5cj0OECTu9Dj/lpV6+CTm3H0B2Sipf2OJD8 aFJPNUCMWCMwPFnO+ED2HSjSbZyyV7/43BzvY= Received: by 10.90.98.17 with SMTP id v17mr1011748agb.59.1278617902737; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:38:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.132.12 with SMTP id j12ls320517ybn.6.p; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.136.4 with SMTP id j4mr468331ybd.22.1278617901842; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.129.19 with SMTP id m19mr557083wbs.1.1278617262482; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.129.19 with SMTP id m19mr557082wbs.1.1278617262444; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x37si851285weq.8.2010.07.08.12.27.41; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.45; Received: by wwc33 with SMTP id 33so74545wwc.14 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:27:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.81.213 with SMTP id m63mr3007092wee.25.1278617261200; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.86.211 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 20:27:40 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] beyond good and evil From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6de0432a856b3048ae547e7 --0016e6de0432a856b3048ae547e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 8 July 2010 14:56, Luke Bergen wrote: > Really? Where do you see that the x1 can be properties? jbovlaste says: > > Word: vrude [jbovlaste] > Type: gismu > Gloss Word: virtue > Gloss Word: virtuous > rafsi: vud vu'e > Definition: x1 is virtuous/saintly/[fine/moral/nice/holy/morally good] by > standard x2. > Notes: Holy/saintly (= cesyvu'e ). Virtue the attribute is "ka > vrude". > > I think we can talk about whether or not the quality of an action are virtuous: lo ka do sidju mi cu vrude The quality of you helping me is virtuous. lo nu do sidju mi cu vrude The event of you helping me is virtuous. Note the "Notes". From what you're saying about the book, it sounds like the title is talking about the ideas of virtue and evil, not people who behave virtuously/evily. > > Right, and that {lo vrude} and {lo palci} can mean behaviours is my opinion. Even in English we can talk about whether or not an abstract concept such as someone's "life" is "virtuous" (OED has an example of this usage). As I have mentioned on several occasions before, I think a person or anything we usually consider as 'individual' is fundamentally an abstraction. We call something "a car" not because it essentially "is a car" but because things (the steering wheel, the sheets, the tires, etc.) practically "do car" at certain times; at other times someone might call it "a house" because the things "do house". So "a car" is a label for an event or state of things car-ing. The same for persons. {do} in the following sentences refer to different abstractions: do bajra do badri do bajra je badri The first {do} refers to the whole of bones, muscles etc. forming a run-able physical body; the second {do} refers to the brain system capable of generating the experience of sadness; and the third {do} refers to both abstractions. In every case, {do} is not to be found as a concrete existence. Can we think of a person without having an idea of an event/state/property that formulates that person (including a mere image of their face, which itself is a state of a nose, eyes, etc. forming a pattern)? I don't think we can. But we also like to think of each of ourselves as an individual entity with its own permanent existential center rather than as a phase in the flux of events. We say "you", not "you-ation" or something like that; "You are virtuous", not "A you-ation is virtuous". Nevertheless, we cannot say "You are virtuous" without referring to a particular decision making process in a brain or to an external action or other modes of event, since these are what define "you" itself. In short, there aren't really "people who behave virtuously/evily" but "people that are virtuous/evil thoughts or behaviours" (just for now I'm ignoring the falsehood of the virtuous/evil dichotomy that Nietzche criticizes). The jbovlaste definition doesn't have to explicitly enforce this radical perspective, but neither should it preclude it by saying "vrude"s x1 cannot be a NU sumti. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --0016e6de0432a856b3048ae547e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 8 July 2010 14:56, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
Really? =A0Where do you see that the x1 can be properties? =A0jbovlaste say= s:

Word: vrude [jbovlaste]
        Type: gismu
  Gloss Word: virtue
  Gloss Word: virtuous
       rafsi: vud vu'e
  Definition: x1 is virtuous/saintly/[fine/moral/nice/holy/morally good] by
       standard x2.
       Notes: Holy/saintly (=3D cesyvu'e).  Virtue the attribute is "ka
       vrude".
I think we can talk about whether or not the quality of an action are virtu= ous:

=A0lo ka do sidju mi cu vrude
=A0The quality of you helping me is virtuous.

=A0lo nu do sidju mi c= u vrude
=A0The event of you helping me is virtuous.

Note the "Notes".  From what you're sayi=
ng about the book, it sounds like the title is talking about the ideas of v=
irtue and evil, not people who behave virtuously/evily.



Right, and that {lo vrude} and {lo palci} ca=
n mean behaviours is my opinion. Even in English we can talk about whether =
or not an abstract concept such as someone's "life" is "=
virtuous" (OED has an example of this usage).


As I have mentioned on several occasions before, I think a person or an=
ything we usually consider as 'individual' is fundamentally an abst=
raction. We call something "a car" not because it essentially &qu=
ot;is a car" but because things (the steering wheel, the sheets, the t=
ires, etc.) practically "do car" at certain times; at other times=
 someone might call it "a house" because the things "do hous=
e". So "a car" is a label for an event or state of things ca=
r-ing. The same for persons. {do} in the following sentences refer to diffe=
rent abstractions:


=A0do bajra

=A0do badri

=A0do bajra je badri

The f=
irst {do} refers to the whole of bones, muscles etc. forming a run-able phy=
sical body; the second {do} refers to the brain system capable of generatin=
g the experience of sadness; and the third {do} refers to both abstractions=
. In every case, {do} is not to be found as a concrete existence.


Can we think of a person without having an idea of an event/state/prope=
rty that formulates that person (including a mere image of their face, whic=
h itself is a state of a nose, eyes, etc. forming a pattern)? I don't t=
hink we can. But we also like to think of each of ourselves as an individua=
l entity with its own permanent existential center rather than as a phase i=
n the flux of events. We say "you", not "you-ation" or =
something like that; "You are virtuous", not "A you-ation is=
 virtuous". Nevertheless, we cannot say "You are virtuous" w=
ithout referring to a particular decision making process in a brain or to a=
n external action or other modes of event, since these are what define &quo=
t;you" itself.


In short, there aren't really "people who behave virtuously/ev=
ily" but "people that are virtuous/evil thoughts or behaviours&qu=
ot; (just for now I'm ignoring the falsehood of the virtuous/evil dicho=
tomy that Nietzche criticizes). The jbovlaste definition doesn't have t=
o explicitly enforce this radical perspective, but neither should it preclu=
de it by saying "vrude"s x1 cannot be a NU sumti.








-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.


For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.




--0016e6de0432a856b3048ae547e7--