From pycyn@aol.com Mon Apr 16 15:15:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 22:15:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 58516 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 22:15:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 22:15:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.68) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 22:15:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.71.c908b56 (3926) for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <71.c908b56.280cc8e7@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:15:03 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Q To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_71.c908b56.280cc8e7_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_71.c908b56.280cc8e7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/2001 3:48:29 PM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > >> That doesn't work, because the false value doesn't have a referent > > > > Whoa! If the true value (Truth) has a referent, then so has Falsehood. > > Sure. Plausible, since they don't seem to be linguistic items in any sense. Still, why insist that the *false one* has no referent, rather than just saying that *they* don't? That sounds suspiciously like thinking that the referent of False is the complement of the referent of True, which is, in turn, all that there is -- also (except for the first part) a plausible position (usually, in this one, the referent of True is everything that is face on and the referent of False is everything that is arse-first). --part1_71.c908b56.280cc8e7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/2001 3:48:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:


>> That doesn't work, because the false value doesn't have a referent
>
> Whoa!  If the true value (Truth) has a referent, then so has Falsehood.

Sure.  But I affirm that neither one has a referent.


Plausible, since they don't seem to be linguistic items in any sense.  Still,
why insist that the *false one* has no referent, rather than just saying that
*they* don't?  That sounds suspiciously like thinking that the referent of
False is the complement of the referent of True, which is, in turn, all that
there is -- also (except for the first part) a plausible position (usually,
in this one, the referent of True is everything that is face on and the
referent of False is everything that is arse-first). --part1_71.c908b56.280cc8e7_boundary--