categorization and generalization...

[cbmvax!uunet!dino.ulowell.edu!gryphon (Coranth)]

coi. rodo

"What Eric and lojbab and probably many other people have been arguing is
stretching into two different points.

Eric (correct me if I paraphrase wrong) is against mass-termism because it
leads to such things as the Holocaust (to hyper-exaggerate his point).

What is failed to be noticed here is that whether there are linguistic terms or
not, this collectivism (often called generalization) is quite likely to happen
in any language. it *IS* a function of world-view.

Whether I talk about (to use Eric's example) 'Mr. Jew' or 'Jews' or 'the
Jewish people' or "loi xebro" this is the SAME GROUPING.

It makes no difference whether things are presonified (#1), generalized
implicitly (#2) or generalized explicitly (#3). They all amount to a grouping
of individuals into a mass-set (#4) and the assigment of atttributes to that
set.

Now, personally, I *HATE* such collectivism and generalization, for the simply
reason that it does lead to an over-simplification of traits, and (potentially)
dangerous classification, which in term often leads to segregation.

"xu lei prenu du loi remna"
is is true that the set of things I call people is the same as the set of
things which are actually human...?

For a long time, this sort of generalization took place. I was thrilled to
see the terms distinguished in lojban, simply to make the DISTINCTION.

I have gotten off the track. While I personnally disapprove of such grouping,
they are an INHERENT part of how humans think. Hence, whether we put such
terms in explicitly or leave them open for implicit usage, humans are going
to group things together.

I think that by making the mass-term cmavo EXPLICIT, we can go a way to
DISCOURAGING their use innapropriately. But I still want the ability to say:

"me cu terpa lei cinka" and with that...

"
co'o. rodo

				mi'e korant.