Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:40:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802011740.MAA26865@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: f214a3200635b3b50a52b266ec43a613 Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 02 14:38:30 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >> Now using Lojban djuno as I have argued it, we can still use "mi djuno" >> for "we hold" and do not need to use "fatci". But we also don't have to see >> relativistic by using "jinvi" because the founders who "held" those truths >> did indeed presuppose them, and jinvi is too weak a claim. > >At last you are in agreement with the rest of us then. It follows >from what the rest of have been saying that if the founders >presupposed the beliefs to be true, then "mi djuno" would be an >appropriate framing predicate. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is whether, if the founders presuppose the truth, but >I< do not, whether >I< can say: "le finti cu djuno" recognizing that they do, but without bringing myself and my beliefs into the predication at all. lojbab