[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> The idea of a unicorn is real but I refuse, by an obnoxious committment to
> empiricalism, to believe in any imaginary worlds where unicorns roam
> around. Since I have philosophical problems imaginary worlds, I prefer to
> discuss the concept of the Unicorn
[...]
> This may give nearly identical results to Imaginary World theory, while
> satisfying positivist epistemology concerns
I don't understand your qualms. I imagine you read fiction. You know
those fictional worlds aren't real, but you can make about them the
same sorts of statements that you can make about the real world.
Anyway, for purposes of the current discussion I think we agree.
> Why are we so concerned with existence? Is this some sort of a corruption
> of logic by the hallucinations of mad metaphysicists, ranting gibberish
> about being and nothingness and nonbeingness? What do we mean by
> existence: empirically provable, or just assumed to exist for the sake and
> context of the discussion?
>
> I propose that "existential import" in Lojban mean the latter; that claims
> by default refer to whatever hypothetical universe the discourse is taking
> place in -- full of Unicorns and Sherlocks as easily as they might be
> forbidden. And that we reserve da'i and da'inai to import the results of
> the discussion to the empirical universe, or inhibit the same
This was my proposal too. Except I am a minority voice opposed to the
use of da'i/da'inai for the job (even though to the best of my knowledge
I was the first to introduce that usage in my misspent youth).
> Specifically, I propose that {da} mean {da da'icu'i}, not {da da'inai} as
> we seem to have been torturing ourselves over
Actually, that much was agreed upon years ago (though of course not
everyone here now was around the last time it got discussed).
--And.