Metaphysical assumptions

[John Cowan <cbmvax!uunet!marob.masa.com!cowan>]

You write:

> From what I've seen debated in Metaphysic journals, I want a bias against
> their hogwash.

and

> and if you cannot adequately represent the more complex expressions of
> metaphysics, then DON'T WORRY about them.  They are more likely a figment
> of some ambiguity of the language that they originated in than an expression
> of an idea worthy of my attention. PLEASE DON'T CLUTTER UP LOJBAN to deal
> with them.  In other words, if some metaphysics debate sounds nonsensical
> in lojban, assume it is nonsensical and lojban is working perfectly.

I believe these sentences represent a misinterpretation on your part of the
term "metaphysical assumption".  As used in Lojbanic discourse, a metaphysical
assumption is not an assumption made by metaphysicians.

Instead, it is an assumption regarding the fundamental vs. secondary
character of some concept.  For example, all English sentences (or nearly all)
are marked with respect to tense:  either past time or non-past time.
Therefore, it is a "metaphysical assumption" of English that tense is
an essential property of all meaningful utterances.  On the other hand,
the source of the speaker's knowledge (observation, deduction, guesswork,
hearsay, mythology, etc.) is not a metaphysical assumption of English, as it can
remain unstated in English sentences, but is a metaphysical assumption
of Navajo.

Lojban attempts to "minimize metaphysical assumptions" by making most
kinds of information such as tense and observational status optional.

-- 
cowan@marob.masa.com			(aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban