Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u

From: Jim Peters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:58:47 +0100

And Rosta wrote:
> Can we agree that there is a distinction between things that are
> part of local spacetime and things that aren't, even though we can
> think and talk about them? We *don't* have to agree on how it is
> established which spacetime is local/real, and we don't all have to
> share beliefs about what is and isn't part of this-world's
> spacetime. All I care about is that we have ways to express the
> distinction and that these ways should ideally be the same for all
> predicates.

Yes, we can agree, but only if I move to your point of reference and
give up a lot of things from my world.

Given the experiences I've had to explain to myself, that point of
reference is not too useful for me.

If you want to use that distinction to define part of the language,
fair enough. However, I feel that *everything* (thoughts and dreams
included) is part of my local space-time, so if I'm talking from my
point of reference, then there is nothing on the other side of the
border.

I don't think this stops the language working at all, though. 

If I'm talking with someone who understands where I'm coming from, I
can use the words naturally (for me). If not, I'm going to have to
expand on things anyway just to try and explain how I'm thinking.

> I don't know whether we can agree on this, but I hope we can.

We're not agreeing, but I don't think it matters. Really my point was
only to expand the horizons a bit, and perhaps blow a few assumptions.
I'm not going to fight over it.

Jim

P.S. Except maybe knock myself out trying to find a way to explain
this in your terms. Did you feel me bouncing ideas off you for the
last hour or two ? I must be nuts.

-- 
Jim Peters (_)/=\~/_(_) Uazú
(_) /=\ ~/_ (_)
jim@ (_) /=\ ~/_ (_) www.
uazu.net (_) ____ /=\ ____ ~/_ ____ (_) uazu.net