Re: Abstration and Epistemology particals (was Re: Gender in pronouns) Sorik of Vulcan Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:34:54 PDT >Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:58:56 -0500 >From: Rob Zook >To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net >Subject: Abstration and Epistemology particals (was Re: Gender in pronouns) >Reply-To: vulcan-linguistics*shikahr,com,inter,net > >MDriest wrote: >> > >> Another idea: >> - different stages of abstractness. This may need some work. >> >> Does everyone remember Lyras' speech about abstract words? >> We could have words in categories: concept (totally abstract), derived >> or semi-objective, and object. > >This is definitely something I've been working on. I'd like to see >a set of abstractor particles one could apply to words to >distinguish it's level of abstraction, and a set of source particals >which would refer to a level of confidence. > >I'd like to base the > > >> C'Thia would be conceptual. There is nothing you can point at and say >> that it is 'C'Thia'. It has no practical relation with the physical >> world. > >I would not call that entirely accurate. C'Thia in our minds simply >refers to a rather fuzzy set of ideas about Vulcan logical practices, >theories and applications. That the set of fuzzy does not mean you >can't point to practice X, practice Y, and practice Z and say that >70% of Vulcans would agree these practices exemplify the ideal of >C'Thia. The _concept_ of c'thia is most certainly abstract as we cannot see the concept. It is an idea. If we see it practiced, then we can use the semi-objective, but if we are talking about the nature of the concept, then it is entirely abstract. > >However, I would certainly agree that it seems very abstract in >nature. There is no _one_ thing which the word refers to but there >is a fuzzy set that the word refers to. Using fuzzy logic (which I >only have a passing familiarity with unfortunately), a Vulcan could >probably describe the nature of C'thia very precisely in a particular >situation. Just because a thing is not entirely defined does not make it less than objective. It does mean that the "word" might reffer to more than one thing, however. And just because you can see the way something is used does not make the "something" visable. > > >> The Vulcan Academy would IMO be semi-objective meaning there is a real > set of buildings but when you say "The Vulcan Academy" you still draw >> on a variety of objects for defining what the Vulcan Academy is. > >And a set of abstractors would certainly help clarify how you mean >the phrase "Vulcan Academy". > > >> A derived word could be a word like "seskahlna" (made up), meaning a >> 'priests' staff'. There is an actual stick or staff that would be > objective but that's not all there is to it. >> >> 'Plant' or 'house' would be objective as you can point to a clear > thing. > >A particular plant our house would have a specific reference. Like >a Day Lilly, or Sarek's House, but not just the words "plant" or >"house". Maybe the , , etc. idea is enough for distinguishing the above. You could say, "This Day Lilly", and that seems sufficient. > >> This distinctions make sense in a language and culture where it is of > great importance to make clear how your logical thinking precisely >> developed. In Terran languages it is often hard to put into sounds >> precisely and accurately what exactly went on in your mind. This is >> clearly not desirable. > >Definitely, I agree. I think the "Structural Differential" of >Korzybski gives us the best methodology of expressing these levels of >abstraction. My copy of the book, _Science and Sanity_ where he >describes it in detail I have packed away for the moment, but I will >get a copy of it from the library tonight and attempt to describe it >and it's use more precisely. > >In general, the Structural Differential refers to a specific model of >the "structure" of various "levels" of abstraction and how they >relate to each other. > >Some important levels: > >Event - The level beyond all sentient abstraction >Object - The basic sensory experiential level (preverbal) >Symbol - various levels of abstraction which involve words and concepts >Sign - high level representations of the event level (i,e. scientific > theories) > >Essentially the main relationships between these levels loops around. >The Event level refers to those sources of energy which we suppose >exist outside our bodies and minds which may output energy that impacts >on our senses. We never really gain any direct contact with this >level and only suppose it exists and describe it with abstractions >on other levels. > >The object level refers to the direct objects of our experience. The >"tree" I see, touch.,etc, for example. > >Symbol levels represent all the various ways I can abstract the >experiential tree into words and pictures. Basically, all the stuff >I can do to express my experience of the tree to another sentient. > >Sign levels represent very high level abstractions which have a high >correlation of structural similarities to the Event level. > >Now this is a very basic description of something I read about >quite a while ago. So any logical problems in it, may be due to my >descriptive abilities and memory. I will try to reproduce the >section from _Science and Sanity_ as soon as I can get my hands on >a copy. > >Now, using the Structural Differential as a model we could have >abstraction particals one can add to entity or action-state words >which indicate their relative level of abstraction. Like, I could >have an abstraction partical (which I'm just going to call an >abstractor from now on) which refers to the object level (or a >_set_ of sensory specific abstractors). > >So I could say something about the "seen-tree" as opposed to an >"idea-tree" (symbol level), or "biological-tree" (sign level). > >Which would make certain things hard, if not nonsensical to say. >Like what could a "seen-peace" refer to? Or a "smelled-justice" >mean? It would clearly distinguish highly abstract words as >not-directly experiential events, and keep them from being talked >about and discussed as if they were "things". > >Also, we can use something which lojban calls evidentials, particles >which express a relative degree of certainty. One could say with >some precision the source, reliabiility - in brief the justification >or source of knowledge for a statement. > >Some possible evidentials: > >direct experience >operational instructions for the experience >hearsay >unspecified source > >For example we could say something like, "The 'operationally-known- >electron' has a positive charge". Or "(the electron has a positive >charge)-'known operationally' via this procedure..." depending on the >emphesis we wish to make. > >In formal Vulcan I think both of these kinds of particles should >be required for gramatical correctness. Although, by default I think >that for a unqualified word, we could consider it as having an >'unspecified source' and existing at the 'symbol level'. > >A really simple way of describing these two sets of paticles, simple >at least in philosophical terminology) as epsitological and >ontologically relating particles (for the evidentials and abstractors, >respectively). > >Now, to bring up something totally unrelated, I think Vulcan particles >could be useful by themselves as words - perhaps in response to a >question. So given that Vulcan is an agglutinative language perhaps we >should create a "null" action/state or entity, that one can attach them >to, instead of just letting them "hang out" there. I suggest this >because in certain areas of speech like mathematics a null action/state >or entity would also prove useful. > >So, for example, if someone asks a specific empistemological question >like: "How did you know about the tree", one could respond with the >visual sensory abstractor+the null word+any useful tense aspect >particles and it would act as a very nice short hand for "I know it >because I saw/am seeing/expect to see it". However, using a sensory >abstractor in the future tense in response to an epistemological >question seems rather suspect, and we might want to consider it >ungrammatical. > > >Rob Z. > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www,hotmail,com