RE: [jboske] lo'e, le'e

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

pc:
> a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
> <<
> 
> They mean "In a version of the world conceptualized in such 
> a way that lo'i/le'i broda has only a single member, the
> single member of lo'i/le'i broda is...".
> 
> I can appreciate that this may not fill you with a desire to
> embrace them in your usage (though it does have that effect
> on me), but I would hope at least that my understanding of
> the two gadri is now clear.
> 
> >>
> Ignotum per ignotius. The contrary-to-fact conditionis too remote 
> from the real world for me to have any idea what follows (cf. "If 
> Socrates were a seventeenth century Irish washerwoman,...")
> 
> xod
> <<
> I don't see how this is any clearer than the CLL's explanation. I suppose
> you're referring to the infamous Mister Rabbit here.
> >>
> There were times that I actually thought I understood some versions 
> of Mr. Rabbit; I have no such illusions about this (or about most of 
> them, now). 

Fair enough, but on this point I become a xodite: when applied to 
classes that appear to be non-singleton (with 0 or more than 1 members),
lo'e/le'e force us into a new world-view. In such a case it is 
perfectly legitimate for you say "I have no inkling what this means"
or "I have an inkling, but when I think it through it just doesn't
stand up", but part of its appeal is precisely that it coerces a
novel world-view onto the underlying 'facts' of the universe.

--And.