From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Feb 14 11:11:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 19:11:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 81402 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 19:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 19:11:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 19:11:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1EJBkG23848 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:11:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:11:45 -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 Thu, 14 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote: > xod: > > 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 historical document. > > You are in effect saying that the narrator is claiming that the text has > the status of a historical document. I can't think of another context > in which you could say he is claiming objective knowledge. Ordinary > stories and fables aren't claims; they're just descriptions, whose > truth is unimportant. I never meant that the narrator intends that there actually was an elephant and six blind men. I meant that in the context of the story, inasmuch as the six blind men are wrong, the narrator is right about the creature being an elephant. -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.