Re: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> You drink {pisu'o loi djacu} = part of the mass of water.
> You do not drink every part of the mass of water.

No doubt, and I do not drink the whole of it either. The difference
between "the whole of" and "every part of" is that the latter is a
universal quantification over parts, whereas the former does not even
require that there be any parts.

> If you drink the mass of water, then you probably drink every part
> of it. But if you touch the mass of water, then you probably
> touch just part of it. Likewise, if I eat Nick then I probably eat
> (almost) every part of him, but if I touch Nick then I probably
> just touch part of him. 

Which is why "touch" is a 3-place predicate in Lojban involving a locus,
but "eat" is 2-place. The cases are not comparable. (In fact "pencu"
also has a place for the instrument/body part.)

No, I can't accept that doing something to X can be identified with
doing something to the whole of X where X is a jbomass. When X is an
individual, perhaps, but jbomasses aren't individuals.

> > So if an abstract (better: non-objective) painting is intended to, and
> > does, evoke an emotion such as disgust or confusion, then disgust or
> > confusion is, or is not, its referent?
> 
> Is not its referent. If I hit you with the intent of causing you pain,
> is your pain the referent of my blow?

No. But if you hit me with the intent of communicating frustration,
I will say that the frustrated state is the referent of your blow.
Art communicates.

-- 
He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan
tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that jcowan@reutershealth.com
hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com
the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_