Re: [lojban] Qualities & Properties (was: Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 08:24 PM 8/29/01 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Nick  NICHOLAS wrote:

> > > Properties are properties of something; qualities are in and of
> > > themselves.
> >
> >This sounds like a metaphysical distinction that, like all of them,
> >doesn't actually refer to anything in reality, but is an artifact of our
> >concepts.
> >
> >Dogness, a property or a quality? Fiveness? There can't be any instance of
> >a quality existing outside of an observable.
>
> As I understand it, calling it a "property" under the above definition
> means precisely that you are focusing on one (or a couple) of places in the
> bridi.


ka with one ce'u


 You are thinking of things, objects.  Nora and I are of the school
> that tends to see Lojban bridi as more verblike - to stress the
> relationship or process or state of being in a bridi relationship, and to
> look at the strands that define that relationship.  Thus, a "quality" of
> dogness is a tie between dog and species,



ka with two ce'u


 and I start to thing of that
> individual on one hand, and all the other dogs of that species in the
> other, and what about that dog makes it a part of that species, and why
> that species includes this particular dog which may or make not be a
> typical member of that species.  While "dogness" as a quality doesn't seem
> particularly useful (unless maybe you are a breeder), "humanity/humanness"
> does .  It seems trite to speak of an individual's "humanity" which would
> be "lo ka ce'u remna".  But when we talk about that which transcends race,
> creed, and nationality, we get something more abstract and not tied to the
> individual filling x1 of remna.



Sorry, you picked the very worst English example. "Humanity" is certainly
not kamremna; the concept of "humanity" is subject to that ridiculous
phrase "Man's inhumanity to man". Yet there's nothing more common in human
history than "inhumanity", and how could da commonly violate ka meda?

kamremna translates to the un-loaded "human-ness".

Whether the examples are good or bad though, they still rely on figments
of the peculiarities of English and metaphysical fantasies. They cannot
translate into Lojban or a rigorous treatment in English.


-----
"It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution
never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object
of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every
shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously
occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures."   --  Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950