Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:04:41 EST

In a message dated 3/30/2001 9:47:35 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> BTW, don't you feel that the lengthyness of this discussion on {djuno}
> is due to the WASP aspect (with the stress on A(nglo)-S(axon) and -
> mainly! - the P(rotestant)? Just a thought, though, and I might be wrong
> realizing that xorxes (Latin-American, non-AS), like my poorself as
> well, doesn't share those others' opinion(s) on truth. Maybe you all
> (coining the Lojban language) and others living (thinking!) in AS
> environment are not aware of this.
> Just look at the differences of US and European (criminal) procedural
> law: AS law doesn't really believe that the "truth" (=justice) can be
> achieved, it is just a matter of (formally) following the rules (in the
> sense of kind of "fair play") in order to get along with it and thus
> (hopefully/and with the help of God) being able to approximate to this
> goal. Whereas e.g. German StPO (though also formalistic in some regard)
> is deeply rooted in the search for "die *materielle* Wahrheit" (i.e.
> "truth" in a non-formalistic sense). That's what we have to aim at or to
> strive for (and - honestly - help me God if ever missing this goal!).
> Am I wrong with the idea that AS-P influence tends to saying: Oh Lord,
> there's one truth which never is reachable by mankind, all those poor
> sinners (maybe condemned already from the very beginning), so we just
> can follow your word (=rules) and pray to perhaps being led by Thou
> grace. Or even: The "truth" is so far away - and there might be also
> many different "truths" - that it is useless to strive for it, just
> let's unite in prayer and obedience to the Lord ... ;-)
> 
Sehr interessant! I think JCB would be horrified at the Prot part (though he 
was in many ways other than religious). He was responding to the Sapir-Whorf 
stuff of the early 50s (and back to the 20s) and took over their assumptions 
pretty directly (though not always correctly). One assumption was simply that 
there are a number of equally successful ways to describe the world which are 
incompatible with one another. This belief was based on the existence of 
non-SAE (standard average european) languages which differed from the 
familiar languages (even Chinese is pretty SAE on this basis) both in the way 
they describe the world and in the structure of the languages they use to 
make these descriptions (noun-only languages, verb- only, mixed cases, 
topic-modifier, subject-verb-object, and so on through not always very clear 
categories). Since all of these worked, no one of them was "the right way" 
to do it, and thus each inherent metaphysic (what was embedded in the 
langauge to give rise to a way of describing) had an equal claim to truth. 
Whorf, who for an insurance investigator was remarkably flakey, seems to have 
thought (not WASPish, really) that reality was totally beyond words and so 
all were equally wrong -- or almost. He thought that Hopi (his own langauge 
to study under Boas' guidance) was closest -- pure activity for a verb-only 
language. 
I think your characterization of Anglo Saxon, as opposed to Teutonic, thought 
is not totally unfair. Both come eventually to realize that reality is not 
knowable or, at least, not describable. The difference comes next. The AS 
says, so we will struggle along doing the best we can and correcting as we 
get better information. The Teuton says, so it must (or should) be this way 
and we will see to it that it is and stays that way. Pragmatists vs. 
Hegelians (and Nazis and other followers of Kant).