From edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu Tue Feb 19 00:12:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: cherlin@pacbell.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 19 Feb 2002 08:12:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 74519 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta5.snfc21.pbi.net) (206.13.28.241) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 08:12:36 -0000 Received: from there ([216.102.199.245]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRR00JILTH0HB@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:12:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:12:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum In-reply-to: To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <0GRR00JIMTH0HB@mta5.snfc21.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: 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 Monday 18 February 2002 15:52, John Cowan wrote: > Edward Cherlin scripsit: > > > 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". > > > > I don't see how we can insist that he says more than "le xanto". > > Because English "the" implies veridicality. "The man was a woman" > is just not sound English. > > > (What does bi'e mean here? I know only of its use for modifying > > precedence in mekso.) > > Thinko for "bi'u". Oh, OK, now I see what you mean. The elephant in the poem is=20 introduced in a theoretical way in the phrase "went to see the=20 Elephant", and you interpret this as=20 "klama mu'i lenu viska lobi'u xanto" go with-motivation what-is-described-as event-of see actual specific=20 elephant and further, you say that the lobi'u is from the author's point of=20 view, not the wise men, and so the author is doing something spooky=20 by invoking a specific veridical elephant.=20 However, nothing in the tale is veridical. It's a parable, in which=20 no claim is made that such a thing actually happened. In fact, it is=20 obvious on its face that it never happened, because it would require=20 "wise men" who were utterly, even wilfully ignorant of all=20 descriptions of elephants (although that is certainly true of most=20 people's attitude to religious teachings).=20 To function as a parable, a story must contain some elements of=20 fiction together with some elements that are obviously true of human=20 behavior, where an analogy can be made with behavior in other=20 situations. Further, like a scientific model, the parable must=20 describe a simplification of the behavior, in order to make it easier=20 to see the key point. One of the simplifications in this parable is that it is much easier=20 to suppose that someone in the world of the story (who happens not to=20 be mentioned) positively and even correctly identified a real=20 elephant for examination by the wise men than it is to suppose that=20 someone in the real world can point you to a real saint or prophet.=20 The veridicality of the elephant within the story is not part of the=20 analogy, and does not imply veridicality of something not in the=20 story. To claim that the author claims special knowledge of=20 elephants, therefore he claims special knowledge of religious truth,=20 is specious. It is like insisting on expanding a non-logical tanru=20 connection. The structure will not bear such transformations. The=20 transformation is fallacious, that is, it is known to result in=20 nonsense.=20 To refrain from such claims, but still claim that a) the author=20 claims that this fictional elephant is real and b) he claims that we=20 can't identify elephants in the real world and c) he therefore=20 arrogantly asserts superiority over us [normally-elidable-terminator]=20 is equally specious. It is the purest of non sequiturs. The premises=20 are all false. I could go on, but it makes more sense to me to go to bed. Good night=20 (veridically, even if you read this in the daytime) [unless, of=20 course, I'm just dreaming {or hallucinating } that it's=20 night time but that I haven't gone to bed yet]. --=20 Edward "That would not be logical, doctor" Cherlin