From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 20:00:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 04:00:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 32852 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 04:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 04:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.30) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 05:01:50 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:00:46 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.30 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:00:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.30] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:00:45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2001 04:00:46.0206 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF93D9E0:01C0B8CD] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6321 la xod cusku di'e > > And why would we want to claim those bad scientific stances > > as truths? > >Because they are accepted as Truth by all learned men except a few kooks >before the paradigm shift. You are confusing me. Are you saying that truth is whatever learned men say is truth? >Each one assembles the raw data into a different model. These models >conflict. There hasn't yet been a moment where one side sees the error of >its ways and joins the other side. What are our options? Who owns the >license to the imprimatur of "truth"? Neither, of course. Each of them will claim to know the truth, and each will claim that the other doesn't. That conflict does not turn both or either position into truth. > > >And if one of them makes as assertion, doesn't it need the x4 place > > >filled up? > > > > What kind of assertion? Most assertions don't have an epistemology > > x4 place. Are you saying that we must accept every assertion as a > > truth? > >Nearly all assertions have really have tacit x4. You misunderstood me. I meant that most Lojban predicates don't have an epistemology place. I agree that every assertion can make sense only within an epistemology, but mentioning it doesn't add much. You can't escape language through language. >You didn't notice, >because usually it's the same x4: the standard cloud of "reasonable" >Western ideas. I find many "Eastern" ideas reasonable too, to the extent that I'm familiar with them, but I hesitate to call cloudy ideas, "Eastern" or "Western", truths. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.