Interesting question. Jeff Conklin once observed that there are
5 kinds of questions that get raised in a discussion about an
issue. (Or maybe it was 7.) The one that stuck in mind was,
"What does that mean?"
I took that to mean, "what does it mean if we do X?". In other
words, what does that make us?
Another type of question was, "what are the implications of that
decision?"
Jeff's experience is based on moderating discussions of this kind,
so I'm sure that the opened-spirit of the method has engenered a
lot of moral/ethical thinking.
As to the efficacy of Loglan for such discussions, I really
couldn't say, at the moment. But the notion thats that "X is
good", "we want X", would seem to be expressible any language
worthy of the name, although we may not have 10,000 shades of
desirability, from "that would seem to be sort of potentially
desirable, in some circumstances, I believe" to "WE MUST HAVE
THAT AT ALL COSTS".
Peter Jones wrote:
>
> Eric wrote:
> > Now, from the standpoint of ordinary communications, I admit that
> > sounds like a defect. But from the standpoint of carrying out an
> > IBIS-style online discussion of an issue, the restriction to
> > emotionally-neutral expression is very likely to be a positive
> > thing, especially in light of...
>
> Perhaps. But to dispute this point would get us into an enormous
> discussion
> of as yet unresolved issues with moral theories.
> For instance, many believe that it is impossible to be ethical without
> some
> intuitive sense of care, and that care is not a logical term in the
> human
> psyche.
>
> I would like to hear from anyone who has attempted to discuss an
> important
> ethical issue IBIS-style. Or even, if anyone believes they have
> successfully
> resolved an
> ethical issue in IBIS discussion, it would be interesting to analyse
> the
> discussion for
> presumed terms not explicit in the discussion transcript.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com>
> To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 12:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating
>
> > Jack Park wrote:
> > >
> > > That work began the evolution of the language Loglan
> > > http://www.loglan.org
> > >
> > Thanks for the pointer, Jack.
> > I've always loved computer languages, as well as propositional
> > calculus and related algebras. I've had a linguistic bent for
> > years, too, but there are too many exceptions to memorize in
> > most languages.
> >
> > Sanskrit and Amayara (sp?) appear to be outstanding exceptions,
> > but there isn't much call for those. This one, aimed at being
> > a "LOGical LANguage", or "LOGician's LANguage", appears quite
> > interesting.
> >
> > "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > One aspect of the language that intrigued me is that the
> > > dictionary consists of predicates, each of which takes a
> > > specified set of arguments -- essentially subroutines or
> > > method calls.
> > >
> > Fascinating.
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> > >
> > > I am thinking that Loglan, or perhaps some future derivative
> > > of it, could form the seeds of a rather potent language for
> > > online discussions.
> > >
> > I think so, too. Partly because of the logical nature of the
> > language, but especially in light of...
> >
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I seem to remember a post on a newsgroup about the difficulties
> > > of expressing statements with emotional content in Loglan, and
> > > about how that impoverished communication.
> > >
> > Now, from the standpoint of ordinary communications, I admit that
> > sounds like a defect. But from the standpoint of carrying out an
> > IBIS-style online discussion of an issue, the restriction to
> > emotionally-neutral expression is very likely to be a positive
> > thing, especially in light of...
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> > >
> > > From
> http://www.css.sfu.ca/update/vol6/6.3-trouble-in-paradise.html
> > >
> > > "Without facial expressions, voice intonations, or
> > > gestures, relationships can be strange; jokes and irony can lead
> to
> > > misunderstandings. The distancing safety of the medium can promote
> > > casual inflammatory and hurtful remarks.
> >
> > A language that lent itself to more dispassionate analysis might
> > be exactly the ticket to counter-balance the effects of distance
> > on communication!
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> [Image]
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your Web
site for Business" and learn all about serious security. Get it Now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aihfLB/oT7CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 14:30:47 PDT