Not a problem with modern philosophers only. Jargon is h= andy in-shop but should be avoided outside, something philophers forget in = their enthusiasm for their "new idea."

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com<= br>Sent: Fri, July 29, 201= 1 9:44:02 AM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

I wasn't ridiculing your idea. I'm a programmer who uses multiple&nbs= p;inheritance regularly although I've been loving me some functional l= anguages lately :)

I was more just expressing my frustra= tion with this general trend for modern philosophers to use language that s= eems to muddy the waters rather than clear them.

e.g. "Thus, I guess the best thing to do is to create a neologism to<= br> encapsulate the very special meaning of this (somewhat ?) "new"
<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb= (51, 51, 51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">notion..."

Instead of "I think the best thing to do is to = create a new word to describe this new concept".

But really, I apologiz= e. I'm being nit-picky and hickish. A person shouldn't be = criticized for being articulate. mea culpa.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:

Luke, I am not doggy-philosophically qualified to tell if Cummerbund
is a valid concept. But Dao is regarded by philosophers as a valid concept even if it embodies some multiple inheritance... Also, I
don't think you're ignorant, you just have a more
mathematics-polarized mind than me (besides, this is not plainly
exact, I think OOP-multiple inheritance can be
mathematically-logically understood).

Why not being entitled to mix notions together ? After all, what is<= br> "agit-prop" ? This term refers to a specific mix of "agitation" and "propaganda". Hence, the soviet neologism. This is a particula= r
case of deciding it is valuable, to some extent and for some usage, to
mix up together A and B, and get the mixed-notion (A+B). There are many other examples in language, either in tool names, in philosophic
or political concepts, in some caracterisation of some hybrid species,
and so on...

You would argue that mixing up concepts is the kind of "ideological"
nonsense, or illogical argle-bargle that Lojban want to get rid of.
In some sense, the fact that it occurs a lot in ideology and
philosophy, two non-neutral thought-fields, is a hint... But, well,<= br> even this is no argument : if someone wants to show that the use of a=
notion (or a simili-notion) is argle-bargle, it is necessary for him
to be able to term it, to design it... thus, it is required we can say even illogical base pseudo-notions in Lojban, even if it be just
to trample them down. Someone can scold me, but I think that {
speaking of a (both A and B)-object is valid } IFF { speaking of a
A-object AND speaking of a B-object are valid }.

--

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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.