RE: [jboske] Re: Kinds

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> cu'u la .and 
> 
> >Kinds involve a fundamentally different ontology from ordinary
> >predicate logic:
> 
> >i. To every property there corresponds one Kind. (I'm not sure
> >whether relations also have corresponding Kinds.) A Kind is
> >the embodiment of the property 
> >ii. Every x can be construed as a Kind corresponding to property
> >{me x} 
> 
> .... every which x? As in, the cat Mr Frisky can be construed as a 
> Kind corresponding to the haeccity (or whatever) Mr Friskyhood? 

Yes.

> Well, maybe so, but what does that buy us?

An ontology that gives us what we were looking for.

> >iii. All kinds exist 
> 
> If you can get away with this, then this is indeed the solution to 
> intensionality. *If* you can get away with this 

Since all properties exist, it is not too difficult to take one
step further to an ontology where their corresponding Kinds exist.

> >iv. A Kind exists in more than one world 
> 
> As I'm finding in my remedial reading of Montague For Dummies, the 
> problem of what exists in what world is very very thorny, and Monty 
> following Dana Scott dodged it by having the pool of X range across 
> all worlds, without pausing to wonder whether X belonged in world A 
> or B. Intuitively (and I know intuition is evil in formalism, but 
> still), if we have two worlds, one in which I eat an apple and the 
> other in which I eat an orange, it is perverse to say those aren't 
> the same individual. So I don't like even posing the issue of what 
> exists in what world 

For things like cats and apples, if da plise/mlatu, then, IMO, da
is a piece of a single world, pisu'oloi -world (a spacetime). I take 
that as part of the meaning of plise and mlatu. I further think that 
spacetimes don't overlap, so a piece of one is not a piece of another.
But things like "da -number" and "da ka" don't require da to be a piece 
of a single world -- da is not a piece of spacetime. And the same goes
for Kinds.

> >v. One Kind can be a kind-of another 
> 
> >For property P, the corresponding Kind could be defined thus:
> 
> >x such that for every y, if P(y) then y is a kind of x
> 
> So if P is 'blue' and y are all individual blue things, then y's are 
> avatars of the Kind Blue 

Yes.

> >and if y is a kind of x then either P(y) or for me'i ro
> >z such that P(z), z is a kind of y 
> 
> If y is an avatar of Bluedom, then either it is actually blue, or it 
> itself contains different kinds of things, most of which are actually 
> blue?

The idea is that the kinds of Mr Dog include not only Mr Fido but
also Mr Poodle.

> >A. One Kind o-gadri:
> >lo-kind broda = lo-kind cmima be lo'i broda
> >lo-kind cmima be le'i broda
> >lo-kind cmima be la'i broda
> 
> >B. One Kind gadrow:
> >lo-kind broda
> >le-kind broda
> >la-kind broda
> 
> >C. One Kind LAhE:
> >LAhE-kind lo'i broda
> >LAhE-kind le'i broda
> >LAhE-kind la'i broda
> 
> I believe C is least disruptive, but would not object to B 
>
> >In AL, I follow xorxes in opining that lo/le/la when not preceded
> >by an explicit PA should mean lo/le/la-kind. This solution seems
> >so overwhelming superior to A/B/C that the BF ought to consider
> >it 
> 
> And it so overwhelmingly breaks with the existing understanding of 
> {lo broda = pa lo selci be loi broda} that I will vote against it 

*Is* that the existing understanding of {lo broda}? I'm not sure it
is. But anyway, I don't want to rehash the discussion about 
fundamentalism we've just had. All I was thinking was that the
BF ought to at least be given the chance to consider elegant
revisionist solutions, if it is to be given a chance to make
SL palatable enough to prevent defection to AL.

> >As for "is a kind of", this can either be a selbri (typically
> >taking as x2 a sumti of type A/B/C), or a NU working like
> >{poi'i}, or (by stipulation) LE + ro + A/B/C 
> 
> The least disruoptive and most intuitive, I take it, would be a 
> selbri. Is klesi that selbri?

Not quite, because klesi (e.g. "da klesi de") doesn't guarantee that 
x1 and x2 are Kinds. But some lujvo involving klesi would do.

--And.