From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Feb 06 12:14:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 6 Feb 2001 20:14:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 6203 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 20:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Feb 2001 20:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org.) (209.208.150.50) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2001 20:14:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org. (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f16KEY612710 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:14:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:14:33 -0500 (EST) To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: > Xod: > #On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, And Rosta wrote: > #> Thanks. I understand (maybe). I agree with pc, then, that there's a > #> problem (and I also think that it is the "(me) la X" form (and the notion of > #> reference) that is metaphysically faulty). > # > #Metaphysically faulty? It is metaphysically faulty to interpret "me la > #foo." "as x1 is refered to as foo"? > > Doesn't it mean something more like "is Foo" or "has the individuating > characteristics (haecceity) of Foo"? And then, as John has said, the > problem is with Foo. "la xod" refers to a particular human-sized > chunk of spacetime, but "la sherlock holmes" doesn't. I don't buy this at all. Are you saying I can't lie and call you Sherlock Holmes if I wish? What if I were mistaken and thought he really existed? ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!