[lojban] Re: [hobyrne@gmail.com: Alphabet]

[Hugh O'Byrne <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

To get the emotional point out of the way, since I'm finding it an
impediment to continuing the level-headed conversation:

> > Point: emotional.

Okay.  I summarized too far with that point.  I meant to express that
*I* had an emotional reaction to what you had written.

This whole "Point:" thing on a line by itself was the experiment in
writing I was talking about.

> Not really; just putting the problem in its proper place.  We cannot be expected to be concerned
> with what is for us a non-issue.

It quite clearly *is* a non-issue to some.  But have you ever thought,
*should* it be an issue?  Or, *why* is it an issue to others?

I hope we can agree, comprehensive use of reductionism is an important
motivator for many of the features of the Lojban language.  I will make
a leap in stating that that it is a value, in and of itself.  I am
promoting that value.

> > I am a Lojbanist.  I'm not a member of the ruling elite, or the steering
> > committee, I'm not even barely fluent.  I am a Lojbanist.  I do see room
> > for improvement, and I do think it's a worthy goal, to improve upon
> > Lojban.  I am a Lojbanist.  I am a part of Lojban.  I will not let you
> > dismiss me so easily.
>
> I have hardly dismissed you, having spent a couple of hours writing to you,  I am, however, trying
> in a friendly way to suggest that your issue is not one that other people in the group are likely
> to be interested in beyond reading the first few exchanges.

Quote:
"But that is your problem, not Lojban's or Lojbanists'."
Since the 'problem' under discussion (which I later restated as 'room
for improvement') is an issue I have with Lojban, I do not see how this
can *not* be construed as being dismissive of me as a Lojbanist, and as
a part of Lojban.

Not to say that I don't have room for improvement myself.  It's part of
why I'm here.  I want to improve myself, as well as Lojban.

But that is one sentence out of many.  Actions speak louder than words,
and you have indeed spent time in conversing with me, so on the whole,
no, you have not been dismissive of me.  I overreacted to the one
statement, when the body of evidence was pointing the other way.  I
apologize for being abrupt when I had no just cause to be.  As I said, I
was emotional.

I do appreciate the time you have spent on this subject.  I have
learned, and I have adapted my approach to match what I have learned.

I don't even particularly *want* this to be an issue for *most* people
in the group.  Different people have different focuses and different
specialties; this is natural, it's normal, and good, and desirable.  *I*
don't want to be dragged to a Latin class.  My wife doesn't want to be
dragged to a Mathematics class.  Latin is not for everyone, Math is not
for everyone, my proposal is not for everyone - but all three still have
their place, and still have value in and of themselves.

So your friendly suggestion is cordially greeted, but it doesn't really
concern me if people not interested in what I'm talking about, don't
listen to what I'm talking about.  I wouldn't want to force them to.
But if there is a more dedicated forum for me to post on, maybe one in
which more or most people *would* be interested in a (non)issue such as
this, I'd be very happy to know about it.

> > Changing my "I do see a problem" to "You do have a problem", from the
> > purely logical point of view, or for example if translated into Lojban, 
> > is transparently erroneous and glaringly misrepresentative.
>
> Sorry.  Usually, if someone says he sees a problem he implies that there is a problem there (it is
> hard to see what isn't there and stay completely rational).  Since I at least do not see a problem
> and find nothing in what you say that leads me to think there is one, I conclude (as I would in
> the visual case) that there is something the matter with you -- and a problematic thing at that. 
> Sorry if I left out the middle step.  With it in place the whole is pragmatically sound.

*sigh*

Within the constraints of "from what I can see and find", I can see the
link you make from "I do see a problem" to "You do have a problem".  It
is judgemental to state the conclusion without that qualifier, though.

So, "From what I can see and find, you do have a problem" is
pragmatically sound.  I'm okay with that sentence.  (Note the form of my
own sentence: "I do see a problem".)  But I'm not okay with "You do have
a problem".

I do not budge from my sentence:

Changing my "I do see a problem" to "You do have a problem", from the
purely logical point of view, or for example if translated into Lojban,
is transparently erroneous and glaringly misrepresentative.

As you say, this is a combat zone.  I am trying my best to choose the
right weapons, and learning as I'm going.  Friendly warning: you'll need
to choose your weapons carefully too. :)

> > > From a 
> > human point of view, it was low, cheap, petty, and unfair.  I do not 
> > deserve that, and I will not let you apply it to me.
>
> Sorry. Occasionally the whole of thirty years reading newbies who have solved all the problem of
> Lojban before they can write a grammatical sentence sweeps over me and I dump a small part of it
> on  the current person offering the 217th cure for which there is no known disease.

(known to *you*; dismissive again, but given the tone of the paragraph,
understandable and forgiven)

Thank you.  Believe it or not, I'd like to continue thrashing this out,
if it doesn't make everyone too uncomfortable.  Especially if I can do
it with a 30-year veteran of such issues.  I think there's still more to
get out of this issue (at least, for me, even if you don't believe
there's anything in it for Lojban).  If you are really convinced it is a
non-issue, I'll understand if you find it not worth your time to
continue (that *is* a lot of frustration you carry); if you do continue,
I welcome it and look forward to your insights.

For my part, I hope I can do a better job of communicating what I find
as fun and neat, I seem not to be getting through with my current
approach.  I want to share it!  I want others to know the fun and neat
reaction this idea evokes in me!  It is very similar (to me) to the fun
and neat reactions evoked by Lojban.  And mathematics in general.  And
that's why I have a conviction this belongs here.

And I realise I've made some grammatical mistakes in my posts so far,
but I hope I have demonstrated by now that I have a pretty good grasp on
what's going on.

There's a thought.  What would it take for me to be more than just the
217th irritation?  What benchmark would you have me pass to become, not
your peer (*that* would take me decades), but at least head and
shoulders above the rabble that's clamoured at your door before?  Wow,
that sounds very suck-up-y.  I'm not actually as interested in proving
myself to you, as I am in learning what it takes to be a contender in
this field.

> > Meta-point: query.
> >
> > Why are you going on the offensive?
>
> Proper question is why I have been only defensive so long.  You made the proposal; it is therfore
> yours to defend.  So far I have mainly pointed out inadequacies in the defense; a little attack
> seems called for.

I meant to write, Why are you going on the offensive against *me*?  I
put forward a proposal; but, I never went on the offensive, not
personally.  But, with what's above, I'd like to think that slate is
wiped clean.

You have pointed out inadequacies you have seen, I have shored up the
idea and tried to more clearly indicate where the strengths are.  And I
couldn't do it without help such as yours.  I feel like progress is
being made.

> > I am upset.  I shall have to look at the rest of this post later.
> >
> > mi'e .xius.
>
> Sorry to hear it.  Advice: Ask whether you can pay the price of admission into the combat zone
> that is one part of this list before you hop in.

:) Yes indeed.  As I wrote in another post, I miss university for the
intellectual arguments.  I'm ready to take some heat.  I'm willing to
risk my feelings getting hurt a little.  Overall, I enjoy the process of
debate.

In another post, you've as much as called me ignorant.  I'm okay with
that.  I freely claim that I am ignorant.  I guess I have an ulterior
motive for being here, in that I think it can help me, as well as my
stated motive, I'd like to see (what I consider) an improvement applied
to Lojban.  Oops.  You now know my secret plan.  YOU MUST ALL DIE!
ehem.  But seriously, if the current level of my ignorance is
intolerable to the group, I'll leave.  I *am* very sensitive to this
issue, I've seen hangers-on in groups they don't belong in, and despised
them for it.  I don't want to be despised.  So far, I've had no
indication I'll be asked to leave, for which I am relieved and grateful.

You've also suggested (paraphrasing) I have 'puppy love' for Lojban.
Understandable; I'm a vocal newcomer.  But I have long-standing love for
Mathematics.  And some skill; I once tutored a student taking a
Differential Equations class, when I had not yet taken the class myself.
 She'd hand me the book, I'd skim the chapter they taught in class,
hardly ever taking more than two minutes, and then for the rest of the
hour help her understand the core insights and how they apply to the
homework problems.  And she rated me highly as a tutor.  I'm rather
proud of that.  I immodestly think it gives me some little bit of
authority in speaking of matters mathematical and logical.  My love for
Lojban is a very very similar flavour to my love for mathematics.  And
my love for VS/Lhoerr/etc. is also a very similar flavour.

And I do hope I can become 'almost as good as a similar companion'. :)
That would please me a lot.

mi'e .xius.
--



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.