[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > No -- For Kind as defined by me -- &-Kind -- Mr Nick does write words and > > eat specific fish. However, he does so in infinitely many possible > > worlds. One of the special things about &-kinds is that they inhabit > > many worlds, occurring wherever their manifestations occur in those > > worlds > > Well, consider those Amazonian lunatics who think every new day is > announced by the rising of a new Sun individual. If we can get them to > believe that all these Suns are merely avatars of Apollo Helios, then > why cannot they retort that (by the same token) we will next tell them > that the fish they eat every day are merely avatars of Amazonus Piscus They can retort that. I'm not sure if I see what you were getting at. > Or perhaps you mean that all of these are true: > > Mr. Nick types on Mr. Computer > Mr. Nick types on the computer of the day > The Nick of the day types on Mr. Computer > The Nick of the day types on the computer of the day Where "the X of the day" means "an instance/avatar of Mr X", I was saying that I thought all those are true (in an ontology that accepts the notions on which these expressions are founded, of course). I am not 100% certain, now, though: I haven't thought of any clear pros and cons. > Or consider Fido the rottweiler. Is it true that: > > Fido is an avatar of Mr. Dog > Fido is an avatar of Mr. Rottweiler > Fido is an avatar of Mr. Fido > Fido is an avatar of Mr. Fido of 2003 > > Have I got it now? Each of those kinds has an avatar (what I called Instance elsewhere) that we might call 'Fido', yes. But we (IMO) cannot recognize Fido except as something that is an instance of Mr Fido or of a subkind thereof. --And.