[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick: > Why, of course me and And try to do the same thing at the same time. > The discussion is heading in the same direction, after all Sorry. Our messages are crossing each other. > >* One series, 'AVERAGE', yields a *representative* and *imaginary* > >member of lV'i, derived by averaging and squinting > > This includes Mode X and, from what you say, Prototype X. This is > indeed imaginary perforce > > >* The other series, 'UNIQUE', simply presupposes that lV'i is > >singleton > > .... yeah, but what is it? Obviously not derived by squinting, because > you admit now squinting isn't it. Obviously not a defining exemplar, > because that's protypicality. It's not the mass, it's not the group. > So if I go to your next message.. > > >I am talking about a particular concept I am trying to pin down, > >not about what "lo'e" should mean] *must* be a single individual, > >and be seen as the one individual that satisfies the description > >So what does "loi'e ropno gugde" mean? Well, one way to derive > >its meaning is indeed through squinting. But -- though for this > >particular example it's a bit of a stretch -- I could conceivably > >see European Country as a single individual (just like I see > >John Cowan) that is actually manifest and nonimaginary. I would > >find it present when I look at France, when I look at Hungary, > >and so forth > > .... hang on. Is this Carlson's Kind, then? As in, European Country is > to Hungary as John is to John-here-and-now? (In both cases, the > individual/avatar realises the more general entity.) > > It could be cool, if so. But if so, this entity must be kept > hermetically distinct from both Prototype and Mode. It is not derived > by squinting or prototyping Yes. Unique turns a kind into an individual. Indeed, Ropno Gugde is to Hungary as John is to John-here-and-now. Where squinting comes in, is if you normally see many different individuals that are instances of the same kind. Squinting is the process of seeing those different individual as the same individual, so that the distinction between kind and individual is erased. > It is the Any-X, but with a crucial difference that it is generic. > The Kind of Lion is a reference to the species, and anything said of > it must be true of the species, not of any number of individuals or > avatars. So it is nonsense to say "This Kind of Lion is sitting on > the lawn"; you can only say "This Kind of Lion sits on lawns". > (Something Lojban can't handle well, because it was designed by > people who... oh, never mind.) Similarly, you cannot capture the Kind > of Lion --- you only capture avatars --- and I regard Jorge's > attempts to say you can as sabotage.. No, I had thought you understood me, but something has gone wrong here. Lion is to some particular lion as Nick is to Nick-sleepy. Now, Nick can be sitting on the lawn. So likewise Lion can be sitting on the lawn. Suppose a lion is sitting on the lawn. Then you decide you were wrong to think that all the lions in the world are different individuals. You decide that they are in fact the same individual, just cunningly disguised as different individuals by the application of makeup and wigs. Then it follows that this one individual, Lion, is sitting on the lawn. > .... although Carlson admits "he owns that kind of lion", and > interprets it by massification: if you own at least one realisation > of the kind of lion, you own the kind of lion > > So what, is the kind of lion a mass after all? Dammit to hell, now > I'm confused again. I still don't know what the hell this Unique > thing is. If I can't understand it, how do you expect Lojbanists in > general to? I don't expect Lojbanists in general to. It's not that I think it's such a difficult notion (Lion is to a particular lion as Nick is to Nick-sleepy: is that so difficult?). But I know from experience that I've said it and not been understood. Well, actually, it was only pc who said (repeatedly) he didn't understand, and I think pc needs to put in a different category from "Lojbanists in general".... Will reply to the rest tomorrow... --And.