From edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu Mon Feb 18 03:04:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: cherlin@pacbell.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 11:04:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29780 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 11:04:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 11:04:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta7.pltn13.pbi.net) (64.164.98.8) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 11:04:40 -0000 Received: from there ([216.102.199.245]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRQ009VH6RRMI@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:04:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:04:39 -0800 Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum In-reply-to: <3C6C0DF0.2020209@reutershealth.com> To: lojban Message-id: <0GRQ009VI6RRMI@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> Organization: Web for Humans MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable References: <3C6C0DF0.2020209@reutershealth.com> X-eGroups-From: Edward Cherlin From: Edward Cherlin Reply-To: edward@webforhumans.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=31895329 X-Yahoo-Profile: echerlin On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:20, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta wrote: > > You are in effect saying that the narrator is claiming that the > > text has the status of a historical document. > > Not necessarily as such: the story can be true or false. But > within the story, the authorial voice claims that the six blind men > are referring to the same object, *and* that it is an elephant.=20 > This is rank metaphysical spookery. Nonsense.=20 The blind men asked someone who could see to guide them to an=20 elephant. The author didn't place them beside an elephant by=20 omniscient authorial fiat. He does not have to say whether this=20 sighted person was correct. We are allowed to assume that=20 "what-the-author-described-as-an-elephant" (le xanto) was actually an=20 elephant (pa lo xanto), without insisting that he made that claim=20 himself. Of course, if we want to play with the supposition that the=20 blind men's guide was wrong (unbeknownst to the narrator, even), then=20 we can have even more fun with the situation. But nowhere is there a=20 claim that the narrator knows more about elephants than any other=20 sighted person.=20 The real issue, I suppose, is whether someone is making the claim to=20 know the ultimate truth in whatever epistemology. This is not the=20 function of the narrator. He does not say that he has seen the True=20 Elephant[TM] in complete detail. The claim is just that those who=20 argue loudly about religion demonstrate thereby that they don't know=20 what's important about it. Like, for example, Creationists. We can=20 agree that they don't have all the answers without claiming that we=20 do. > The point of the parable, surely, is that we all see things from > our own limited perspectives. But the poem is self-undermining, > because of the existence of an authorial voice who uses "the > Elephant" =3D lobi'e xanto, and says "all of them are wrong".=20=20 I don't see how we can insist that he says more than "le xanto".=20 (What does bi'e mean here? I know only of its use for modifying=20 precedence in mekso.) Anyway, he says, They argued loud and long, And all were partly in the right, And all were in the wrong. which I also claim *without knowing whether it was really an=20 elephant*, and I'm not even the author (and I'm not all that accurate=20 about elephants, either). > This > voice can only be the voice of omniscience,=20 That strikes me as a severely limited perspective. > and if there is such a > perspective, then the notion of limited perspectives falls apart. Thanks anyway. This whole exchange has done a lot to illuminate the=20 arguments about the True Nature of Lojban on this list. (It must mean=20 this! It can't mean that! Must! Can't!) --=20 Edward Cherlin Generalist "A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it." Alice in Wonderland