Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Those little (temporal)chunks of individuals that xorxes seems to think are needed somehow or that he thinks are analogous to manifestation in the Platonic model.  And he is right, of course, in that both of them are abstractions from individuals, which, so far, are all that have been shown to be needed.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 26, 2011, at 22:59, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Monday, 2011-09-26 at 19:33 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> While I think that it is possible to make both the Platonic (all
>> types, no individuals) and Buddhist  (all segments, no perduring
>> individuals) models work, they both seem to me needlessly complex as
>> models for Lojban (or English) semantics.  Both languages assume
>> perduring individuals and admit (if at all) types as syntheses of
>> individuals and and segments as analyses.
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by 'segment' here?
> 
> Martin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.