coi la pycyn
Thank you for the historical information about Loglan and Lojban. However, I (and maybe la sykyndyr also) tried to "define" what to be called the current and the future Lojban. That "definition" may be shifted from JCB's or the later creaters' will.
As for my point of view of cultural neutrality, the facts of the ancient India and the ancient China you pointed out cannot negate my theory.
Some of what are studied in the ancient Indian and the ancient China are now translated as "logic" into English because of the property of studies related to reasoning. However, the subjects of those studies are reasoning, not the symbols of Sanscrit or Hanzi. Those cultures did not invent what can be translated as "symbolic logic", in which a new language consisting of symbols simplified and specialized for expressing logic was invented.
As I have already discussed, that language invented for European logic are not logic itself. That language, as well as Lojban, should be able to express the ancient Indian logic or the ancient Chinese logic by defining suitably logical axioms and rules of deduction, just like the modern _expression_ of fraction $frac{1}{3}$ can express both European "one over three" and Chinese "san fen zhi yi"; the latter consists of "three", "separation", postposition that means "of", "one".
mi'e la guskant