From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 08 12:53:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 8 Oct 2002 19:53:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 1109 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 19:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2002 19:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 19:53:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.36.2eb3ea22 (4529) for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:52:58 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] ui and truth (was: Re: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:32:21 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes: << > I'm not sure that pc restricted his claim to the pure emotional > indicators. Also, a long argument concluded that, sometimes, the pure > emotional indicators could affect truth, and that propositional attitude > indicators don't always. >> Well, I was talking lierally only about {ui} and {mi gleki}. Similar lines can be taken on a fuzzy list of other items ("fuzzy" only because there are a few tht really seem to be "context decides" cases). I don't recll a case of a "pure emotion" item (assuming these ae the non-fuzzy cases on the emotion side -- {ui}, for example) affecting truth values. The propositional attitudes don't always sounds like the fuzzy cases. And, of course, some of the critters in this heap affect truth values simply by moving the whole into directional -- or other non-assertive -- illocutionary acts ({e'u} and {e'o} for example). And som I have no idea what they do or mean ({e'i} for example). << And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that ...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning ``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points." >> >From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact that there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way -- and a significant number of people who were still in the state of malglico confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem always to be some -- which does not make the loss of the distinction correct, only epidemic). CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to time, as anyone in these kinds of discussion knows. --part1_36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:32:21 AM Central Daylight Time, xod@thestonecutters.net writes:

<<

I'm not sure that pc restricted his claim to the pure emotional
indicators. Also, a long argument concluded that, sometimes, the pure
emotional indicators could affect truth, and that propositional attitude
indicators don't always.

>>
Well, I was talking lierally only about {ui} and {mi gleki}. Similar lines can be taken on a fuzzy list of other items ("fuzzy" only because there are a few tht really seem to be "context decides" cases).
I don't recll a case of a "pure emotion" item (assuming these ae the non-fuzzy cases on the emotion side -- {ui}, for example) affecting truth values. The propositional attitudes don't always sounds like the fuzzy cases. And, of course, some of the critters in this heap affect truth values simply by moving the whole into directional -- or other non-assertive -- illocutionary acts ({e'u} and {e'o} for example). And som I have no idea what they do or mean ({e'i} for example).

<<
And the Book itself says "In fact, the entire distinction between pure
emotions and propositional attitudes is itself a bit shaky: ``.u'u'' can
be seen as a propositional attitude indicator meaning ``I regret that
...'', and ``a'e'' (discussed below) can be seen as a pure emotion meaning
``I'm awake/aware''. The division of the attitudinals into pure-emotion
and propositional-attitude classes in this chapter is mostly by way of
explanation; it is not intended to permit firm rulings on specific points."
>>
>From the historical view, this was a cop-out, brought about by the fact that there were cases which seemed (as noted) not always to go one way -- and a significant number of people who were still in the state of malglico confusion on the issue even in the clear cases (there seem always to be some -- which does not make the loss of the distinction correct, only epidemic). CLL is given to such wishy-washies from time to time, as anyone in these kinds of discussion knows.

--part1_36.2eb3ea22.2ad4919a_boundary--