Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:07:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802121207.HAA08766@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: 81e6d445c3056bd13f5ac1ba2ce65844 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 17 10:10:45 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >> 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 djun >> recognizing that they do, but without bringing myself and my beliefs into th >--More-- >> predication at all. > >One can't say *anything* without "bringing oneself and one's beliefs >into the predication" (I am assuming that that locution is defined by >the example of the putative workings of djuno's x2). Or, >alternatively, one can say everything without "bringing oneself and >one's beliefs into the predication". There's nothing special about >djuno. djuno refers to the mental state of another, and hence I can report that mental state without reference to my own mental state regarding the same subject. If the discussion were about emotional states, this would not be in question. We can report John feeling an emotion without feeling it ourselves. It is only if we consider "knowedge" to be different - an absolute that is independent of minds, and of epistemologies, that we assume that our own menatla state has any relevance to reporting another's mental state. Knowledge (at least se djuno in Lojban) has nothing to do with facts in the absolute (fatci), and doesn't necessarily have to so with jetnu (truths that may be stated so as to be observer-independent). It is only when we assume an absolute reality consisting of objective facts, of which any person's "knowledge" is a subset of these facts, that we can trulky say that knowledge requires "truth". But we all seem to be agreeing that fatci is reltively useless simply BECAUSEW there is little that is absolute fact, and we certainly do not limit knolwedge to those things that are absolute facts. When we overtly make clear that the context is subjective, the use of "know" to reprt another's thinking does not imply anythimg about our own knolwedge or belief. In English, however, subjective context is not the default, whereas in Lojban it is. lojbab