Subject: Re: [lojban] Re-evaluation + an idea - Was: A parable

From: Jim Peters <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:03:14 +0100

Invent Yourself wrote:
> > Maybe I should come as clean as I can. I threw the spanner in
> > regarding the defined meanings of Lojban words being non-abstract, as
> > a Sapir-Whorf thing.
> 
> What does this mean?

Right, I think what I was trying to point out was that in some
languages the common word to describe a common activity also has
connotations that go way beyond that simple activity. So simply
saying things like "run" or "walk" bring with them a huge bundle of
world-view and background assumptions. You can't even "run" without
pulling in the world-view !

Let's say the word "kill" in some language has a more full meaning of
"release the soul to the other world". See then how different it is
to say "I killed the man" in that language compared to English.

If this were Lojban, kill might be defined as "x1 (perpetrator)
terminally injures the body of x2 (victim) using x3 (implement) in
location x4 with witnesses x5". Now say "I killed the man" - it feels
different again, right ?

Okay, I'm exaggerating, but maybe this is making sense ?

[ Actually, I've just checked the definition of "catra", and I wasn't
exaggerating that much !! (laughing with tears here, or crying with
laughs, I'm not sure which). ]

> > If the approach so far with Lojban has been to base everything on a
> > physical-scientific world-view, then I'm in absolutely no position to
> > argue with that. In any case, it does have the advantage that all
> > Westerners will understand it, and science has been spreading pretty
> > well to other places. Maybe this could be seen as the chosen "tone"
> > of the language.
> 
> Do you think Lojban has that tone?

I think in many places. 

With "catra" I was shocked, to be honest - how much violence can you
get into a word ? This isn't even physical-scientific, this must be
something cultural in the origins of the Lojban word-list.

But in any case, scientific descriptions have been used often in the
gismu list. Maybe I'm mistaken - I'm not sure. This may become more
or less clear as I get to know the language better.

> What's the best world-view you've seen for building rocketships? 

I don't know many people who've built rocketships. However, both the
Russians and the Americans seem to have pulled it off, so I'd guess
the world-views of the technical communities of these two nations
would be a good first choice.

> How about for keeping a marriage together?

Well, I don't know many people who've kept marriages together either !
However, a friend of mine recently married a Chinese woman, and I was
surprised about how easy the decision seemed, how easy and natural it
was for them. There is definitely a completely different approach to
marriage that comes from China (in this case and another I know). I
can honestly see these two together for their whole lives - the
feeling with them is something like cranes come home to roost at the
end of the day.

> > I don't know how big a task this might be - how many phrases are
> > required to completely define all the words and constructions to the
> > depth that you'd all like them to be defined. Maybe it's an awful
> > lot, so maybe this isn't actually feasible in practice.
> 
> Wonderful idea! We have random sentence software.

That's no good. The sentence needs to have some real-world meaning
and context for the mind to build upon. Also we need English
translations that are easily intelligible. It might even be worth
placing these phrases in situations to give them relevance, like
conversations or whatever.

Also, when I say "define (whatever) by example", I don't primarily
mean define the grammar, but rather the meanings of the words. I'm
talking about building up the unconscious associations between
word-patterns and forms of meaning.

You know, based on what I was saying, I've started reading all the
shorter pieces of Lojban in the posts to this list, rather than
skipping them. Already there are odd words that `light up'.

> > [*1: Justification: Working with healing, I know that there are many
> > systems to help understand and resolve illness, and all of the ones I
> > know do indeed work, in their own ways. Although there are some
> > common themes that occur, in several cases one world-view will say
> > completely the opposite of another. So you can't make a bigger better
> > world-view that actually works by merging them. This doesn't make any
> > sense, but this is my experience.
> 
> This is very discordian. But what if you try? Cultures don't disagree on
> the brokenness of a bone. So there are some illnesses whose state has
> nothing to do with the world-view. Perhaps you'd like to qualify that
> statement of extreme relativity?

Okay, at the very least I can say that it's often impossible to
describe or explain one system in the terms of another. They work,
but can't be explained in anything else but their own terms.

Perhaps this doesn't exclude the possibility of there being one big
view that could contain them all.

Regarding broken bones - you couldn't have chosen a more concrete
example, and since all of us learnt to understand the physical world
and its dangers as children, I think you're right - all cultures will
understand the physical nature of a broken bone in the same way.
However, how they'd approach getting it to mend is another matter.

I have a slightly less concrete example: I was at a party,
and some guy who was drunk walked into an archway, banging his head.
There was no visible damage, but in the morning he was in a lot of
pain. From a medical view point, I don't know what the explanation
might be - bruising inside the skull or something ? Anyway, I had the
feeling to offer Reiki, and he accepted, and putting my hands on his
head straight away I `saw' something stuck in his head come back out
of his head, like his skull was broken in at some level other than the
physical level, and it had corrected itself. Straight away he told me
that the pain had gone.

This seemed like a good example because the result was so quick and
undeniable. The Reiki solution doesn't exist from a physical point of
view. It also doesn't exist from the point of view of Chinese
medicine (as far as I'm aware). I don't know how you could
incorporate this occurrence into the other systems. Perhaps it is
possible ...

I've a suspicion that when you nail things down to create a system,
you're doing so by making some assumptions and maybe drawing some
implicit boundaries. Something like saying "We're going to try
believing that such-and-such is true, and see how the world looks from
that perspective". The same thing looks different from different
perspectives, and may even be invisible from some view-points.

My approach to all this is pragmatic - I don't care that I don't yet
have full explanations for many of the things that have happened.
Maybe I'll be able to form greater understandings from them in the
future.

Perhaps a position of `extreme relativity' is the best I can do for
now - or on the other hand perhaps it is simply the underlying nature
of perception.

Jim

-- 
Jim Peters (_)/=\~/_(_) Uazú
(_) /=\ ~/_ (_)
jim@ (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) www.
uazu.net (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_) uazu.net