Bunches
On 11/28/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For the case with no individuals you can take
> > for example
> > the open sets on the real line, with union as
> > "+".
>
> Nice; that does look to give a case that fits all
> the theses so far developed except the foundation
> one and what follows from it. But it still has
> nothing to do with bunches which are conceptually
> exactly founded in the way stated: a bunch is a
> bunch of things and when you get down to the
> things that is the end of the process (actually a
> step before, since in some versions unit bunches
> are the singleton of the thing, not the thing
> itself — but the thing is a member, not in in
> the relevant sense, which tends to be like
> inclusion in these versions).
That's clear, yes.
Can you think if a
> Lojbanically relevant use for kinds, those
> unfounded critters?
Certainly. (Intensional) kinds for example. Stages of individuals
would be another.
mu'o mi'e xorxes