Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error

[Jan Pilgenroeder <pille@mac.com>]

coi xorxes

I had a bad feeling about switching from talking about symbols to 
talking about things. It invites trouble.

The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for 
"that wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be 
observed", and that's a valid luman zei nunzga. They can refer to 
themselves (they can refer to one of their operations and thus mark 
this side of the difference between themselves and their environment), 
but they can not operate in the unmarked space of lo'i velbo'e se 
velbo'e. Any talk about things that are not luman zei nunzga are 
actually beyond what they can deal with.

> la ian cusku di'e
>
> > The different velbo'e could also be different psychical and social 
> > systems.
> >
> > .i le mi'o velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e
> > 	le mi'o velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o
> > 	le la pavbudjo velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a
> Let me try to translate this.
>
> le mi'o velbo'e: "Our system"
> le mi'o velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a: "Our system
> (which observes something which is observed)"
>
> The {be da poi velbo'e ke'a} adds nothing, because every
> velbo'e, to be a velbo'e, has to be a velbo'e be da poi
> velbo'e ke'a. That's even more general: if "broda" has an
> x2 place, then every broda has to be a broda be da poi broda
> ke'a.
>
> le la pavbudjo velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a:
> "The Buddhist so-called system".
"Buddha-Mind" was what I was aiming for.

But you are right. We should not call the "Buddha Mind" velbo'e (the 
same is true about christian concepts of the mind of God).

But even if we say the Buddha observes: The velbo'e in the relative 
clause is not specified. So there is a way out. This is a typical way 
out for luman zei nunzga. This way out is not working though, when the 
system reference is lo'i velbo'e (that's why philosophers are always 
running into trouble). The system of lo'i velbo'e would have to get 
into an infinte regress in its search for a way out.

Also the problem seems to disappear when we only talk about names 
instead of things (well unless someone asks what things these names 
refer to, lol).

The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about 
things, we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things 
in X2 and X3 of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid 
operation of those systems. By allowing the observation of things we 
actually break the operational closure.

So the definition will have to go back to symbols for X2 and X3 (and 
also for X4 and X1, or otherwise the system will not be able to refer 
to itself or to its operations). I think with the recursive definition 
of x3 the problem of the "nu'o se sinxa" should be solved.


> No velbo'e can be a velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a,
> so you are suggesting that the Buddhist system is no velbo'e.
>
> Your sentence then comes out as:
>
> Our system distinguishes itself from the Buddhist
> so-called "system".
Yep. Existence is duality, no-nexistence is non-duality ;-)

Bye,
   Jan.

--
Jan Pilgenroeder
Theaterstr. 59
52062 Aachen