From jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Wed Jun 14 09:15:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8859 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 16:15:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Jun 2000 16:15:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bodhi.math.ucla.edu) (128.97.4.253) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 16:15:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (bodhi.math.ucla.edu [128.97.4.253]) by bodhi.math.ucla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA00485; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: jimc@xena.cft.ca.us To: John Cowan Cc: "lojban@onelist.com" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo In-Reply-To: <394788EF.6DE0DE95@reutershealth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jim Carter "Reality is the refuge for those who can't handle drugs" :-) Would you believe two million words of predications about arguments (sumti) whose referents don't exist, and whose whole purpose is to not exist? I'm referring to works of fiction. Also planning documents for unapproved projects (snowballs in hell), worst case scenarios, etc. etc. I'll bet that more (written) predications involve nonexistent referents than existing ones. If embellishment, as in gossip, removes the embellished referent from existence in reality, then the above restriction to written predication can be dropped. Perhaps we should avoid saying ``when you make a predication about a referent you implicitly assert that it exists in reality''. Instead we should say ``when you make a predication you assume, and attach to the text by reference, a context or mythos in which the referent is to be treated as existing''. Everybody knows that the mythos is purely for fun, or wishful thinking, or drug-induced hallucination, but to make our conventional form of communication (by predication) function, we have to act as though the fantasy is real. We suspend disbelief; otherwise we're spoilsports or logic-chopping philosophers. And who knows, by lifting our gaze out of the mud we might bring something good into ``real'' reality. James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu (finger for PGP key) UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > I would have read "lo > > [dragon] klama" as ipmyling something like "Some dragons, oh, by the > > way, dragons really exist, go", which is apparently wrong. So I take it > > all back. :) > > The problem with that is the notion "really exist". As Ray Smullyan says, > you can no more examine a chair and tell if it is "real" than you can examine > a window and tell if it is going to be broken in a few hours. Reality is > the dream-state we don't wake up from (except perhaps when we are dead, > who knows). > > But yes, predicating something about dragons implicitly asserts that there > are dragons to predicate about. > > -- > > Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan > Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com > Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their > articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get > paid in cash for their work. Click below: > http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960989412/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com >