From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Feb 13 08:12:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 16:12:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 54647 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 16:12:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 16:12:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 16:12:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1DGCgQ17342 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:12:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:12:41 -0500 (EST) To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1138703 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote: > Xod: > #Now come on! How does the narrator "know" the object was an > #elephant? He is claiming objective knowledge in distinction to the 6 blind > #men! Where does it imply anywhere that the narrator is unsure of his belief > #that the animal was an Elephant? The criticism stands, whether or not it's > #relevant to the point of the fable. (I tend to think not.) > > It depends on the UI the narrator uses. It is possible for the narrator > to assemble a set of sentences that describe a state-of-affairs without > the narrator necessarily claiming that the state-of-affairs is objectively > real. Indeed, that is how stories and fables work. Nobody's debating whether the story is hypothetical as opposed to being a historical document. -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.