Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:15:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802172215.RAA01206@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: 6e6d07b7f596ce1384cb0df8aaf89552 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 18 16:02:55 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >To repeat from earlier messages, there is a linguistic phenomenon, called >"subjectivity", which has to do with the involvement of the *speaker* in >the utterance meaning. And it is possible for the speaker to sympathetically >take on the being of one of the "characters" being spoken about. It is a >well-known and well-studied phenomenon. The speaker changes >identities. This accounts for all of the exceptions to the standard story >about "know". And Lojban has a means of explicitly marking linguistic subjectivity, or maybe even two. The whole debate about se'i/se'inai and empathy had to do with this. I added those because I felt that unmarked subjectivity was wrong. >> But we all seem to be agreeing that fatci is reltively >> useless simply BECAUSEW there is little that is absolute fact, > >Jorge & I certainly don't agree with that. By the definition of fatci, if there exists a metaphysics under which something is not true, then it is not a fatci - a truth-in-the-absolute, whcih is what I mean by "absolute fact". lojbab