Re: [lojban] state of {binxo}

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

Not trying to amend {binxo}, just to clarify its implications.

So, summing it up, the only thing I can generally assert about
binxo1 and binxo2 is that either the first ceases to exist or the
second comes to existence in the span of nu binxo, right?

Even this is important, because it means that, no matter how I
refer to or describe them, either binxo1 has no future or binxo2
has no past.

More concretely, and rewriting my example, at least one of
  {ko'a tricu ba lo nu binxo}
  {ko'e tsiju pu lo nu binxo}
makes reference to an object out of the time-span of the bridi.

Anyway, my main concern with {binxo} usage really is the already
discussed issue that a change is only actually stated insofar as the
properties of binxo1 are known to conflict with the ones of binxo2.

What do you think about changing the standard definition of {rodbi'o}
to
  {x1 binxo lo broda be ... be'o xn .ipubo x1 na broda}?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 8 December 2011 09:00, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/12/8 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> On 7 December 2011 07:08, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2011/12/6 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>>>> While I don't consider the concept of an object becoming a different
>>>> one to be illogical, I do opine that it brings more complications and
>>>> is less useful than that of an object acquiring a property.
>>>
>>> That seems to involve the assumption that there are *essential*
>>> objects that persist throughout the flux of perceived changes. Is a
>>> tree essentially a seed that has acquired lo ka tricu, or is it the
>>> tree that virtually appears to be a seed due to lo ka tsiju that the
>>> tree cyclically acquires and loses over generations? Or are both of
>>> them property-acquired forms of a soil, or the Earth, or star-stuff?
>>> How would we consistently tell "the real object" (binxo1) from
>>> derivative properties (binxo2)? Wouldn't that be complicated?
>>>
>>
>> Ontological implications need not go this deep. Objects of the discourse
>> are parts of the universe that may have a limited existence in space-time.
>> The fact that I choose to describe an event using an object which persists
>> through the span of the event does not mean that I neglect the limits of its
>> existence.
>>
>> That said, I do admit that this more radical notion of binxo might be relevant
>> to a discourse.
>>
>> I still would like to know: What are the implications of binxo on the existence
>> of binxo1 and binxo2 during the nu binxo?
>> Does binxo1 cease to exist?
>> Does binxo2 come to existence?
>> Always? Possibly? Never?
>>
>> mu'a does
>>  {lo tsiju goi ko'a binxo lo tricu goi ko'e}
>> exclude
>>  {ko'a ba tricu}?
>>  {ko'e pu tsiju}?
>
> As far as the language is concerned, it depends on the semantic
> relation between the selbri. Usually {tsiju} and {tricu} are mutually
> exclusive: we normally don't think that a tree can at the same time be
> a seed. But we can say that a woman becomes a teacher and remains a
> woman because {ninmu} and {ctuca} are not mutually exclusive. (In this
> case, we could also say that the woman acquires the property of being
> a teacher, which may be the sense you are exploring for {binxo}.)
>
> If a child becomes an adult, we normally don't think that they can
> "de-become" of an adult. Conventionally speaking, {lo verba} ceases to
> exist as {lo makcu} comes into existence during the nu binxo. But
> when? Is there an exact turning point, or is it a gradual process?
> That has to do with binxo3, the condition under which the change is
> said to occur. We can say that something becomes an adult when it
> reaches a certain age. And these are arbitary standards. Age of
> majority, age of consent... these vary across judicial divisions. The
> notion of "becoming" is often artificial, virtual, even illusional.
>
> A change is an aspect of the fourth dimension, time, just like a shade
> is an aspect of the third dimension, space. 2D people have hard time
> seeing that a shaded surface of a cube is part of the cube, but it's
> trivially easy for 3D people. 3D people have hard time seeing that a
> past frame of a cube is part of the cube, but it's trivially easy for
> 4D people. We humans often stop short of seeing things in full 3D &
> full 4D, and that's where problems of self creep in, I think. In a
> full temporal context, there can be a process of a seed becoming a
> tree and then a seed again -- the underlying entity is neither a seed
> nor a tree but a seed/tree. In a full spatial panorama, there can be a
> picture of a seed or a tree being interrelated with everything else in
> the universe on the atomic and quantum levels -- the underlying entity
> is neither a seed/tree nor a non-seed/non-tree but all. The combined
> grasp would be that one whole cosmos wiggles here and there over the
> matrix of spacetime -- no real becoming of something into something
> else independent of the larger whole.
>
> That's not how most people understand and speak of the world. As you
> suggested, we don't have to be too serious about the ontological
> essence of an object when using {binxo}. {lo ninmu} as binxo1 would be
> just one of many possible descriptors for the perceived entity in
> question. We could say that {lo remna} or {lo xendo} or {lo prije},
> instead of {lo ninmu}, becomes {lo ctuca}. This {lo ctuca} might be
> just an addition to the set of descriptors, or it might replace some
> of it, for example {lo ve ckule} (a student) or {lo xukmi vecnu} (a
> drug dealer). She, as a teacher, might consider herself a completely
> different individual from the one who was selling drugs. The question
> of whether binxo1 and binxo2 are essentially the same or different,
> can be put aside. To define that binxo2 is specifically an acquired
> property would be to assume it cannot be but secondary and attributive
> to binxo1 as the core, the essential entity (for which we could say
> {co'a ckaji}). I don't see how that would be a positive amendment to
> {binxo}.
>
>
> mu'o
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.