Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:45:36 -0400

At 05:34 PM 06/13/2000 -0400, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>"Jorge Llambias" writes:
> >>From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> lo LE the really is
> >> veridical descriptor: the one(s) that really
> >> is(are) ...
> >>
> >>The implication is that the speaker is insisting that such a thing
> >>really is.
> >
> >That is what the speaker claims, but why would a claim that the
> >speaker makes and that you don't believe offend you? Only because
> >it is about some god, I suppose. Or are you offended by any
> >claim with which you disagree?
>
>I think I maybe just misunderstand lo. To me, 'lo cevni' sounds like
>the English phrase 'the One True God(s)', which has a _huge_ mess of
>underlying assumptions, many of which ignore the beliefs of 2/3s or so
>of the planet, at least, depending on which god you're reffering to.

First of all, lo is not necessarily singular, so you are making an 
assumption to associate it with a particular claim of deity. It is true 
that lo cevni is claiming the existence of at least one true deity, not 
necessarily an all-powerful creator God of the Christian sort, since I 
don't think that cevni requires that extreme.

But it could also be referring to any number of perfected timeless souls 
that have moved onward from this world, or various other conceptions of 
deity that have existed in the various world's religions.

In any event, do you criticize people who talk about unicorns for not 
examining the underlying assumptions, or those who talk about Sherlock 
Holmes, who is unquestionably a fictional character. (we've been over lo 
[unicorn] many times in this forum).

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org