Re: identity and general semantics

[cbmvax!uunet!PRC.Unisys.COM!dave]

> 1.
> general semantics is an approach, and not a well accepted one (Martin Gardner
> has torn it to shreds, I believe).  We did not and will not embed it as
> a mandatory underpinning of Lojban.  There is room in the language for 

An approach to what?

Some people have gone overboard with respect to General Semantics, and
if some True Believer is what has so turned you off to it, I can
understand it.  However, the basic ideas of G. S. are really very
common sensical, and once you have been exposed to them they do turn
out to have numerous practical applications in everyday life.
Learning about General Semantics is more a matter of having things
pointed out, not a matter of flat statements which you choose to
believe or disbelieve.  (You might, however, decide that the
observations made by G. S. are of no particular significance.)

I can well believe that someone has "torn [General Semantics] to
shreds."  In fact, I would be hard-pressed indeed to find a topic that
someone, somewhere, has "torn to shreds" to their own satisfaction.
However, I doubt that Martin Gardner would be the person in question,
as both he and G. S. are entirely reasonable--unless it is the
extremist nonsense that he has taken objection to.  Can you supply a
reference?

> In short, g.s. is for philosophers, not for me.

What, then?  Is Lojban a language with no philosophy guiding its
development?

I think you will want to re-phrase this statement once you have cooled
down a bit.  "I do not think it means what you think it means."


-- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com)  I don't speak for my employer. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Freedom of speech:  1776-1991.  R.I.P.                              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------