[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lojban coffeeshop

>Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:09:31 -0400
>From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
>Subject: Lojban coffeeshop

>Bowing to Veijo on the title, but preferring to keep subjects
>understood.

>In all the rampant discussion of this topic, of which I approve, i
>ask that people remember that there are others interested in this
>effort that are not on the net, and indeed they include the people
>who wrote the coffeeshop description thus far, and proposed the
>approach that I described in the initial message.

>I'm going to ask that people not go too far away from the original
>idea without getting their agreement (which I suspect is not too
>likely), or the resentm,ent (already significant) of non-netters
>toward the domiantion of Lojban by net people will grow, which noone
>wants.

[...]

>Be that as it may, I recognize that most of the work will be done by
>people on net, and we should take advantage of the opportunity for
>rapid communication.  But please be considerate of those who want to
>particpate but cannot.

    I should like, on my part, assure that I have no intention what
    so ever of being instrumental in causing disputes within our
    ranks. Discussions we must have but we need the consensus to be
    able to go on. It is most unfortunate that we have this division
    into two subpopulations -- those who have the opportunities for
    personal contacts and brainstorming sessions at the LogFests and
    those who have the technological means of communication at their
    disposal (and then, of course, the fortunate few who have both).
    It is all too easy to envy the other party and feel left out of
    an essential part of the action. We ought to find out ways of
    settling the open questions so that no one's feelings get hurt.

    I certainly understand those of us who were at the LogFest and
    now feel that the net-people are trying to take over the whole
    Project utilizing their technological 'supremacy'. On the other
    hand, we who are, due to external factors unsurmountable, unable
    to attend the LogFests and are limited to electronic contacts,
    which -- though fast -- cannot compete with face-to-face contacts
    and classes, feel left out of the initial phase of the Project.
    Actually we were left a quite limited say in the formulation of
    the framework. The views I did present in my previous postings
    were ones I should have liked to present at the LogFest, I should
    have liked to have had my say at that time. Perhaps it would have
    made no difference in the outcome, but I should have felt
    differently. When I was writing the postings I recognized I was
    -- at least to an extent -- writing post factum. The writing was,
    however, necessary to find out just how much elbowroom I had.
    These postings (as quite many of my previous ones) must be taken
    with a pinch of salt. They are in a way a substitute for the
    process of thinking out loud in a class or a group working on a
    problem. The postings do contain errors and false starts which
    in a class would be corrected immediately. I am at least as much
    talking to myself as to others on the net -- but the process
    only works if I do send the messages out. I do hope that the
    people who feel left out of all the fun we on the net do have
    would try -- once in a while -- to imagine themselves sitting a
    couple of thousand kilometers from the nearest active fellow
    lojbo and having only the messages on the screen and the
    inevitable problems caused by widely differing timezones -- it's
    like being a semi-cyborg.

    I can imagine, on the other hand, the limitations of meeting
    others only, say, once a week and keeping all the ideas to
    yourself in the meantime and not hearing from the others or
    the goings-on (too few of us are still accustomed to writing
    real letters -- and remembering the state of postal services
    to-day I guess it wouldn't much help). I can think of being
    without the List (shudder). Of course it is a slightly different
    matter for me here in the middle of a figurative nowhere. The blip
    of an arriving message envelope is also a symbol of the contact
    with you others. Actually, we ought to have both the personal
    contacts and the advantages of modern technology but in a
    worldwide setting it can't be helped -- at the moment. The
    technology can be bought or arrangements made but for personal
    contacts we need local groups instead of the loners around the
    world. Couldn't a local group have common access to the net?
    All it takes is a PC with a modem and an account somewhere on
    the net. Quite many people do have PCs, so they could type their
    messages at home and take them on a floppy to the PC with the
    connection for delivery. That's the way I do it.

    Speaking of domination I think that in the long run the focus
    will have to shift more and more away from the US of A (or more
    exactly: defocus) as more and more people from elsewhere get
    involved. We are sure to have similar problems of two subcultures
    also elsewhere (This isn't, however, a problem which concerns
    only us lojbo -- it's a problem for the whole society). We will
    eventually have local groups all over the world (unless Lojban
    degrades into a theoretical exercise) and sooner or later these
    groups will also include lojbo with no access to the net. Then we
    will, hopefully, have resources for local projects and also
    people well versed in Lojban and its early literature, so we can
    afford a greater extent of diversity and be less dependent on the
    support of the whole Jbolaz. But for the time being we must learn
    to cultivate a deep regard for the sensibilities of all our fellow
    lojbo (and all our fellow human beings) and I do sincerely hope
    this attitude will be inherited by the future Jbonat.

        e'osai ko sarji la lojban

         co'omi'e vei,on


---------
   Again a couple of figurative names:

     la jbolaz.  ( < lojbo lanzu) = the people tied together by Lojban
     la jbonat.  ( < lojbo natmi) = the people with a Lojbanic
                                    cultural background

   I can't tell why I prefer 'jbo' to 'loj' in this context. Perhaps
   it gives the lujvo a certain distance from concreteness. Lojban
   is something quite concrete and 'la lojnat.' would feel too near to
   'Lojbanic nation'. Theoretically, of course, there is no
   difference and the two are interchangeable. I'll leave it to others
   to decide whether these particular forms are preferable and whether
   these names are worth adoption to name the abstract entities in our
   writings. I think we have/will have the entities.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi