Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:13:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801211713.MAA28861@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 560e91bc2a563b0630b8856513ce891d X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2457 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 21 12:10:06 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - > >1. Jorge is completely correct about the meaning of "know", but > > not everyone has managed to realize it. > > > >2. "Djuno" is in the baseline keyword-defined as "know", and > > all of the considerable usage of "djuno" has been in such a > > way that it could be faithfully translated by "know". > > > >3. "Knowing", unlike the official place-structure of "djuno", has > > no "epistemology" argument. [As John has pointed out, this is > > not actually an epistemology argument but a metaphysics argument.] > That depends on your definition of "metaphysics" - as I reported, > epistemology is the subcategory of metaphysics dealingw ith how we know > what we know. I know, and I gather that therefore most of us think "epistemology" inappropriate as a label, preferring "metaphysics" = "model of the world, of how the world is and works". > >4. There seems to be a general sense that (2) and (3) are > > incompatible. > > > >I would take issue with (4). (2) and (3) are compatible: "djuno" > >asserts that x1 beliefs x2 to be true about x3 within metaphysics > >x4, and it presupposes that x2 is true. > But since truth is not an absolute (at least not in Lojban - unless you mean fat > fatci rather than jetnu), this still seems wrong. I may not have access to > le djuno's metaphysics/episte,ology, and my own metaphysics/epostemology may > not generate the same truths that le djuno's does. In that case, "djuno" would be inappropriate as a choice of gismu to describe that situation. You may not like that conclusion, but it is forced upon you by our agreed principles of respecting baselines and usage. > I agree with you that Jorge is more or less correct with reagrd to how djuno > has been and will be used in practice - pretty much like English "know". > But that is because for the most part, the things that we have wanted to say > have been translations from English, and/or have been formulated in English > before expressing in Lojban. Furthermore there are certain people that are > comfortable dealing with multiple ways of knowing, and it is those people > who will more likely use Lojban djuno differently than English know. But > scientists and computer people, who dominate the Lojban community right now > are among the most limiting people I knwo as to what is a knowledge-generating > epistemology. So present usage is not a very good guide for the long term. We can only wait and see, as to that. --And