From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:27:44 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F15N0KBTuvtfZ8ogcnN00012424@hotmail.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 3423


la ian cusku di'e

>the observation of (that wich can not be observed)
>the name for (that wich can not be observed)
>
>same thing

You do see that "the observation of (that which can not be
observed)" is contradictory, don't you?

>>That's metonymy, isn't it? Using the same name for the space
>>marked and for the operation of distinguishing that space. That
>>can only lead to confusion, it seems to me.
>
>happens all the time.
>"brode le selbo'e be da" is regularly confused with "brode da" or even just 
>"da".
>Talk about the real da is actually just talk about an observation that 
>calls something the "real thing".

So, do we want to encourage this confusion, or do we want to
avoid it? I thought the goal of having clear definitions was
in part to avoid this kind of pitfall.

>When you want to refer to the marked state of any luman zei nunzga you only 
>know the name it gave to that state.

I don't see why. I may not know the name it gave to the state. For
example, I can say "I don't know what name the nunzga gave to the
marked state". I am refering to the marked state by the expression
"the marked state", even though the nunzga may have given some
specific name to it. One thing is what the operation does, and a
different thing is our description of what is going on.

>>>The operation does not know anything about x3. All it does is draw a 
>>>distinction and name one side.
>>
>>Right, so we have the following components:
>>     1- the maker of the distinction and namer
>>     2- the name given
>>     3- the side named
>>     4- the side unnamed
>>
>>There is no need for the operation to know anything.
>
>The operation does not give you the side. It just gives you a name for the 
>side.

Yes. The speaker describing the operation refers to the side.
Just like when you say in English "The operation gives you
a name for the side", you refer to "the operation", "a name"
and "the side", you describe a relationship among these three
arguments.

>>>The difference of your X2 and your X3 already requires another operation. 
>>>So you would have to make the definition of your X3 recursive, just like 
>>>I did with my latest version of my definition for terbo'e. You will then 
>>>notice that your X3 and your X4 are defined exactly the same way. So your 
>>>X3 is redundant.
>>
>>I don't understand what you mean.
>
>There must be a difference between your X2 and your X3, and you want to 
>have different contents in X2 and X3, right?

Yes, the name and the named. The cmene and the se cmene.

>Why else would you want to have that additional X3? So it takes an 
>operation of distinguishing and calling to fill those places.

That would be true for any brivla at all.

>We already supplied 2 places to refer to the two sides of the distinction 
>of the operaton. An additional place is redundant.

As long as you don't keep confusing the name and the thing named.
Or is the whole idea to eliminate that distinction?

>>Ok. x1: the one doing the division and marking
>>    x2: the mark
>>    x3: the side that gets the mark
>
>"Let the state be known by the mark. Call it the marked state."
>X3 is redundant.

Yet you keep speaking of "the state" and "the mark" as two
things, you know one by the other.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus