Date:  Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:35:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801201435.JAA04265@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Summary so far on DJUNO
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 9557348eecf7e739cf34481f49ad8cf3
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1097
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jan 20 10:01:16 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

I've had to skim some bits, and have resisted the powerful
temptation to reply to lots of contributions to the debate.
But here is an offered summary in the hope of moving things on.

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.]

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.
If it was up to me, that's not the meaning I'd choose, but given the
necessity to respect baseline and usage, that is the meaning we
have.

There. The debate can end.

--And