Re: Re: lo and intension (was: essentials of a gadri system)

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > CLL-lo'e is not as specifically psychologized as (b). A zoologist can
make
> > empirical statements about lo'e cinfo which are zoological rather than
> > psychological, i.e. about lions in general rather than about the
> > psychological lion prototype.
>
> Correct. And le'e can be seen as the *objective* view of an *in-mind*
set,
> hence its relationship to lo'e and le'i. We get lo'e by generalizing
> appropriately over the members of (the unique) lo'i, whereas we get le'e
> by generalizing appropriately over the members of (some) le'i. By
choosing
> the le'i properly, we can manipulate just which le'e we get.
>
> For example, I can say that le'e xelso prenu has a beard by choosing
> le'i xelso prenu to be the set {Nick Nicholas, Dimitrios Karadimos}, viz.
> the only Greeks I know personally. But anybody can tell you that
> CLL-lo'e xelso prenu doesn't have a beard. (<theKind> xelso prenu of
course
> does have a beard, and is also beardless, depending on which avatar we
> are looking at today.)
>
> I hope this explicates why CLL's account of le'e (allowing for the fact,
> openly stated in CLL, that the word "stereotype" is used in a slightly
> nonstandard way) is plausible.

I'm completely happy with your account of le'e here. I won't comment on
the text of CLL unless anybody wants to argue that CLL conflicts with
what you & I agree on.

> > Jorge-lo'e = Mister != c. Mr Bird treats birdkind as a single individual
> > bird, just as we generally treat xodkind as a single individual xod.
>
> +1
>
> > Prototype-theorists, i.e. some cognitive psychologists, would want to
talk
> > about (b), but it needn't be built into the fabric of the language.
>
> Need not be but is.

Is how? In lo'e? But you and I are in agreement that CLL-lo'e is more
general
than Prototype.

--And.