The Quandary of xorlo
&:
>If I find a slice of JPC then I find JPC. Would
>you insist on translating "I sought JPC" as "I
>tried to bring it about that there is a slice
>of JPC (that I found)"?
Perhaps not, but then I don't see that I am
committed to that. It does seem that you are
however — although you word it differently,
taking "John PC" as a mass noun. That is, my
problem with it is with the "slice of JPC" not
with "bring it about that I make appropriate
contact with." But that is all off the point at
the moment.
>At least you seem to grasp the point I was
making.
I wonder. Let mer try to put this in my own
terms; I hope you will be comfortable with them
as well.
Predicates may apply to things in a variety of
ways. Everything may be predicated of
individually (the usual default way) but
monopoles, things that are constituted of many in
some sense (and, using segmented space-time
worms, for example, this will be most things) can
be predicated of at least distributively (of the
one because of all the many individually) and
collectively (of the one because of all the many
taken together). There appears to be yet another
way for monopoles, what I have called variously
disjunctively or generically, of the one because
of some of the many in some way. In particular,
for a generic object this would be that that
object was predicated of because some
instnace-manifestation-part -... was predicated
of in a more fundamental ways, usually
individually. English (nor Lojban) doesn't mark
different kinds of predication very well — if at
all — using the same locutions for different
types and different locutions for the same type,
creating ambiguities all over the place.
Consider the case of "I need a doctor." This
appears to be a case of individual predication: I
need individually a doctor. As such, standard
moves do not work: I cannot infer "there is a
doctor such that I need individually it." What
xorlo claims is intended is rather "I need
generically Doctor" (or-- what may amount to the
same thing — "I need individually piecee
Doctor"). From this it does follow that there is
something (Doctor, the monopole) such that I need
generically it (or individually piecee it): the
monopole, though not the piecee it, can be pulled
out. And if only the monopole is mentioned (in
the form "a doctor," indicating both the monopole
and the mode of predication) the generalization
goes through smoothly and the appparent
counterexample one — there isn't any thing that
I need individually — is simply irrelevant,
being based on a misinterpretation. On the other
hand, counterexample two, allowing the monopole
in but tstill taking the predication as
individual is also irrelevant: "I don't need
Doctor, I need a doctor" just uses individual
predication in both places again. Using generic
predication (as intended) in the first place
reveals the counterexample as not being one at
all, simply a contradiction. Similar responses
can be made to other versions of counterexample
two: taking "need a doctor" as a either a
collective or a distributive (less plausible)
predication of the monopole. When we get the
right sort of predication, the fronting goes
smoothly, although what is fronted is not exactly
what was expected from the generic. In this way,
while we cannot front the particular instance of
Doctor that I need (since it is not identified),
we can front Doctor, which is coextensive with
all those instances and thus guarantee that we
have the right one (though still unidentified)
outside the
opaque context. Thus, there is no need to mark
the opaque context, sinc it is not opaque to the
relevant sort of things.
Is this roughly right? What changes does it need
to get it just right?