From pycyn@aol.com Fri Mar 30 10:05:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 18:05:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 70494 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 18:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 18:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 19:06:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.1e.1372d58d (4073) for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:04:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e.1372d58d.27f624b9@aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:04:41 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e.1372d58d.27f624b9_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_1e.1372d58d.27f624b9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/30/2001 9:47:35 AM Central Standard Time, Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de 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). --part1_1e.1372d58d.27f624b9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/30/2001 9:47:35 AM Central Standard Time,
Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de 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). --part1_1e.1372d58d.27f624b9_boundary--