[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [jboske] fundamentalism as fundamental (RE: Re: gadri paradigm:2 excellent proposals



At 06:53 PM 12/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > A. Ultra-fundamentalist. CLL is gospel except where it can conclusively
> > be proved to be self-contradictory or to contravene inviolable principles
>
> I don't wish to start another Humpty-Dumpty debate, but surely
> this is fundamentalism simpliciter? *Ultra*-fundamentalism would say
> "CLL is gospel *even* where it can conclusively [etc.]"
>
> Or (in the words of an actual fundamentalist whom I heard on TV
> some years ago) "You don't have to *understand* the whole Bible to
> *believe* the whole Bible!"
>
> John, fundamentalist


Okay: the intent was to contrast with Nick's variety of pragmatic
fundamentalism, which is manifest also sometimes in you. I suppose
that that can be summed up as "you needn't honour the letter so
long as you honour the spirit".

Which I believe was always the intent in defining the baseline; treating CLL as scripture to be taken literally came about only when there was disagreement whether a particular usage was honoring the spirit. If there was a way to go back to that point of view, I'd love it (that may be a way that Academic Lojbanists can experiment and still remain within the greater community of Microsoft Lojbanists).


lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org