From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Dec 12 16:08:02 2001
Return-Path: <xod@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 13 Dec 2001 00:08:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 45147 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 00:08:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Dec 2001 00:08:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 00:08:01 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
  by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBD080U09694
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:08:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:07:59 -0500 (EST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request
In-Reply-To: <F5n3N2kqhaa0TYKMX5A0000174f@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0112121902090.9190-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1138703
X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple

On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> la pycyn cusku di'e
>
> >{logji} is strictly about the means by which a conclusion is reached
> >(really
> >strictly it does not even require that that method be a "good" one, only
> >that
> >it be a specifiable method). It says nothing about either premises, which
> >may be purest crap even if the method is good.
>
> And the use of this method is what Vulcans pride themselves on,
> isn't it?
>
> >so "seemed to
> >fit the situation by the standard of good logic applied to available
> >information" where the standard might be assumed to be the usual -- at
> >least
> >for Vulcan diplomats.
>
> Then {lojdra} might be good: drani fo le logji, correct by the
> standard of our Vulcan logic. Isn't that what "logical" means
> when applied to an action?



How far do we take this? For a society where the default "motive" and
behavior standard is logic, {drani}, {mapti} and {xamgu} are sufficient
responses as well. There is no need to overspecify by mentioning "logji",
it is surely to be assumed.



-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.


