[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 06:53 PM 12/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >John: > > > And Rosta scripsit: > > > > > > > A. Ultra-fundamentalist. CLL is gospel except where it can > conclusively > > > > be proved to be self-contradictory or to contravene inviolable > > principles > > > > > > I don't wish to start another Humpty-Dumpty debate, but surely > > > this is fundamentalism simpliciter? *Ultra*-fundamentalism would say > > > "CLL is gospel *even* where it can conclusively [etc.]" > > > > > > Or (in the words of an actual fundamentalist whom I heard on TV > > > some years ago) "You don't have to *understand* the whole Bible to > > > *believe* the whole Bible!" > > > > > > John, fundamentalist > > > >Okay: the intent was to contrast with Nick's variety of pragmatic > >fundamentalism, which is manifest also sometimes in you. I suppose > >that that can be summed up as "you needn't honour the letter so > >long as you honour the spirit" > > Which I believe was always the intent in defining the baseline; treating > CLL as scripture to be taken literally came about only when there was > disagreement whether a particular usage was honoring the spirit. If there > was a way to go back to that point of view, I'd love it (that may be a way > that Academic Lojbanists can experiment and still remain within the greater > community of Microsoft Lojbanists) I do realize that this is what you and Nick want. The very reason that I said that 'pragmatic fundamentalism' is intolerable is that we end up in ideological wrangling about what does and doesn't count as honouring the spirit. You and Nick are free to plunder AL ideas for use in SL, but I don't want to waste more time on ideological arguments about SL. I'll view AL as a Progressive/Revisionist enterprise and SL as a Conservative/Fundamentalist one, and contribute to each on that basis. --And.