RE: [jboske] loi'e & truthconditions (was: RE: carving the lo'e debateintoshape

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

Adam:
> Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 
> >>I think you are conflating 'lo'i' and 'le'i'; the lions relevant
> >>to the situation as defined by the speaker is 'le'i cinfo'. 'lo'i'
> >>at least attempts to make some kind of a quasi-objective
> >>consideration of all lions 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, but I don't think so. {le'i} is the set of things the
> > speaker is talking about. This is normally a small set (most
> > often a singleton, if not then with two, three, four, a very
> > small number of members, rarely a large number of members) 
> > The singularizer normally does not work on a particular
> > subset that the speaker has in mind 
> 
> Exactly. I am saying that when the singularizer seems to be working on a 
> particular subset of lo'i broda, le'ei/lei'e broda is a much more apt 
> description 

Here's how I'd see it (like xorxes):

loi'e singularizes the set of all relevant broda in the world
lei'e singularizes a specific subset of all relevant broda in the
world.

These aren't definitions; they're an attempt to clarify the difference
in our thinking.

Suppose I am in my study and overwhelmed by the papers therein.
Then I might say "lo'e papri is overwhelming me". But suppose
you and I are discussing our respective filing systems: I might
say "le'e papri is neatly filed", meaning specifically your
papers.

> > The properties of
> > the singularized broda are blurred from those of all broda,
> > but how this is done depends on the situation at hand 
> 
> I think that the idea of loi'e/lei'e is that given a particular set 
> which the abstraction is based on, the abstraction will be more or less 
> the same each time it is used. The idea is to make a claim about lions 
> in general (for loi'e cinfo), which is not possible if the abstraction 
> changes in major ways depending on context 

This is the thing I think we cannot legislate about. 

"The idea is to make a claim about lions in general" is potentially
misleading: is {ti pixra loi'e sinxa} a claim about snakes in general?

But anyway, if I am choosing from the menu and say {mi citka loi'e
plise}, I am making a claim about the general apple. I don't mean
that your average apple is going to be eaten by me, but I do mean
that in this context if you abstract away from interapple differences,
a relevant fact about Applekind is that I'm going to eat it.

> > The speaker does not select a subset and then singularize
> > from that. The properties are drawn most heavily from the
> > most relevant cases. In the general case "the Lion lives
> > in Africa", we are discussing properties of the species
> > and it makes sense to ignore artificial cases like lions
> > living in zoos 
> 
> If the sets on which the abstraction is based have internal structure 
> such that some members are more central than others (which is not the 
> case with mathematical sets), I think that that internal structure is 
> something which should be considered as objective and not affected by 
> the context (though of course the exact details of how two different 
> people see the internal structure may differ). Thus, I can see saying 
> that adult lions in the wild are more central than lion cubs in the zoo 
> to 'lo'i cinfo', but not that the lion about to eat me is more central 
> than some lion lying on the veld and licking its paws. It is not "more 
> of a lion" to me, though of course it concerns me much more just at that 
> time. I think that the proper use of 'le'i' and abstractions based on it 
> is to get such context-dependent subsets 

Repeating in different words what I said above:

The world is not an objective reality. To describe it, we must impose
upon it a worldview.

The horizons of our worldview can vary from context to context.

{lo'i broda} comprises every broda within the horizons of our world view.

{le'i broda} is a specific subset of all the broda within the horizons of
our world view.

What you are saying is that you think we should all agree on a common
world view (presumably the most rational and objective one). 

(a) I don't think that has anything to do with the le'i/lo'i distinction.
(b) I don't think we need to agree on a common world view. For us to 
understand one another, we just need to understand one another's world
view.

--And.