Date:  Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:23:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801232323.SAA22548@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      le ve djuno
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 91426a5e94024cc2ef72154c83cd8605
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 3417
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 26 12:41:00 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Let me put the epistemology vs metaphysics question
in terms of an example to see if we can come closer to
an agreement.

Let's say that Alice receives a revelation from Jboxen
telling her that all Lojbanists are evil. She then proceeds to
found a new religion/belief-system based on this tenet,
which comes to be known as Jboxenism.

Now, in English, we might say:

(E1)  Alice knows that according to Jboxenism all Lojbanists are evil.

and we might also say:

(E2) Alice believes that all Lojbanists are evil because of a personal
        revelation from Jboxen.

I think there shouldn't be any disagreement up to here. Now, I would
not say that:

(E3) Alice knows that all Lojbanists are evil because of a personal
        revelation from Jboxen.

Would anyone who is not a Jboxenist say that? I wouldn't say it
because to me that claim presupposes that it is true that all
Lojbanists are evil, and I don't believe that, even if it was revealed
to Alice by Jboxen itself.

Now what do we say in Lojban?

If {djuno} had no x4 place, I would simply say:

(L1)  la alis djuno le du'u ro jbopre cu palci ma'i le lijda pe la jboxen
         Alice knows that (all Lojbanists are evil in Jboxenism).

(L2) la alis krici le du'u ro jbopre cu palci kei ra'i le nu la jboxen
         cusku ra ru
        Alice believes that (all Lojbanists are evil) from an event of
        Jboxen telling it to her.

Again I would not say:

 (L3) la alis djuno le du'u ro jbopre cu palci kei ra'i le nu la jboxen
         cusku ra ru
        Alice knows that (all Lojbanists are evil) from an event of
        Jboxen telling it to her.

because no matter what happened to make her believe it, I wouldn't
say that she knows something that is not true.

Now, what do we fill the x4 of djuno with? Is it the system of beliefs,
which includes "all Lojbanists are evil" as a truth (i.e. Jboxenism),
or is it the event of Jboxen revealing it to Alice (an epistemology?)?

If I understood Lojbab correctly, he would make this claim:

 (L4) la alis djuno le du'u ro jbopre cu palci kei fo le nu la jboxen
         cusku ra ru
        Alice knows that (all Lojbanists are evil) by epistemology of
       an event of Jboxen telling it to her.

but he rejects that:

(L5)  le du'u ro jbopre cu palci cu jetnu le nu la jboxen cusku ra la alis
        That all Lojbanists are evil is true by epistemology of Jboxen
        telling it to Alice.

If I understood correctly, this can't be true because the epistemology
of {jetnu} can't be so personal as an event in which only Alice and
Jboxen take part.

Others would claim:

(L6) la alis djuno le du'u ro jbopre cu palci kei fo le lijda pe la jboxen
         Alice knows that (all Lojbanists are evil) in Jboxenism.

along with:

(L7)  le du'u ro jbopre cu palci cu jetnu le lijda pe la jboxen
        That all Lojbanists are evil is a truth of Jboxenism.

I find the one with the x4 as a metaphysics to make more sense,
because at least it can be translated to English using "know", while
the one with epistemology cannot. But I would prefer no x4 place
at all. The place is not needed, since the corresponding source
and worldview can always be added when needed.

In any case, I don't think that we can have both (L4) and (L6).
The x4 can't be two such disparate things as an event
leading x1 to believe x2 on one hand, and a whole system
of beliefs that includes x2 on the other.

co'o mi'e xorxes