From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 09:53:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 16:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 87655 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 16:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 16:49:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 16:49:06 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:27:40 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:54:29 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:53:57 +0100 To: lojban Subject: platonism, organicism and hardlinerism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> Jorge Llambias 08/19/01 09:24pm >>> #la nitcion cusku di'e # #>In the attitude to Lojban I will conventionally characterise as #>'naturalistic', it is objected that 'hardliner' insistence on rigour #>(particularly semantic rigour) places unwelcome constraints on creativity= . # #If I may, I would like to open this one-dimensional categorization #into a two-dimensional one. Let's consider two "rigor axes": #semantic rigor and baseline rigor. We now have four groups, which #I will arbitrarily designate as Lojbab, Xod, And, and Xorxes. # #Lojbab wants absolute baseline rigor, and is not overly concerned #about semantic rigor. As long as it doesn't violate the baseline, #anything goes, and if you have to do a triple somersault in the #air in order to make sense of some baseline rule, then so be it, #but the rule stands. # #Xod doesn't care about either rigor in particular. The point of #the language is to communicate, and anything that facilitates #communication is acceptable, whether that means taking liberties #with the baseline or with strict semantics. # #And wants semantic rigor to be matched by baseline rigor, so #whenever the baseline does not make sense it should be officially #fixed. # #Xorxes cares most about semantic rigor, but doesn't give much of #a hoot about the baseline. (LOL) To really get to the bottom of these differences of opinion,=20 I think we have to introduce a further dimension, which I'll=20 call Platonist versus Organicist. Organicists see a language as a community of communicating users and as a body of usage. Platonists see a language as an abstract set of rules. (This 'Platonism' is also known as=20 'Realism', but that latter term is far too liable to be=20 misunderstood.) For Platonists, usage is not language,=20 strictly speaking; usage is vocal noises or visible marks,=20 which communicators interpret of an abstract set of rules.=20 Now I am about the most rabid Platonist I know (among people=20 & linguists in general, not only among Lojbanists). To me, all that matters is the abstract set of rules that constitute=20 the language. Usage is of value only in testing the viability=20 of design features in the abstract specification -- rather as=20 if, to reuse a metaphor introduced by Xod, the only value of=20 driving a car was to test the efficacy of the car's design.=20 Now if the 'baseline' is understood as meaning the official specification of the rules that to a Platonist constitute the=20 language, then you characterize my position exactly. But to=20 some people the baseline also defines norms or parameters of=20 conformant behaviour; i.e. it defines whether usage counts as=20 proper Lojban. Now here we get a different set of ideologies:=20 (a) Xod and Xorxes who don't care whether the usage of the=20 community at large conforms to the baseline, and (b) Lojbab=20 and Belknap-Koenig who do care, and do want usage to conform=20 to the baseline. Lojbab and Belknap-Koenig differ on whether=20 the baseline should be alterable or not. I, on the other hand,=20 care about usage only if the abstract rules that constitute=20 the language are going to be derived inductively from usage --=20 i.e. I care only if usage is an instrument or determinant of=20 design. So by Jorge's classification, And and Belknap-Koenig=20 are in the same corner, but in fact And is in the Belknap-Koenig=20 corner only because the 2-dimensional classification is too crude. (Note, btw, that Platonism doesn't derogate the value of linguistic expression, of literature, and so on. I value=20 linguistic expression as much as I value Platonic language,=20 but personally when it comes to a vehicle for linguistic=20 expression, I am ardently and uxoriously wedded to English.) --And.