[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
2. In every situation (a discourse carried
on in a given environment), for any object or
group of objects, there is a description that
applies (and will be seen to apply) to exactly
that object or group. Further, this description
does not rely on the flow of discourse and
relies on the environment only for ostention;
that is, it relies only on overtly mentioned
properties and deixis. It thus avoids the
difficulties that make Lojban descriptions so
fallible. And, being not relativized to the
discourse, it can introduce things that are not
already relevant to this discourse.
I doubt it. I doubt it very much.
Here's a link about a theory or metaphysical POV called nominalism:
Consider one of the simplest possible groups: how do You explicitly
describe {lo cribe} to a nominalist who doesn't quite believe that there
are nearly identical things as bears? How do You explain what You
have in mind?
I think the differences of personal point-of-views prevent us from
talking about one "objective reality".
However, I agree with the rest of the proposal. Only some intuitive use
of the rules should be presumed, or axioms should be settled about
the perception of "reality".
mi'e.darves.