Re: [jboske] factivity of djuno (was: RE: Gaps and Ungaps

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:08:02PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > >
> > > > This means that djuno contains two claims: by. jinvi cy., and mi jinvi cy.
> > > > Just like in English. Blech. And then djuno4 is useless: it's always tu'a
> > > > mi
> > >
> > > Well, in one sense, but I conceive the point of d4 to be to distinguish
> > > which of multiple possible epistemologies I am entertaining. Perhaps I
> > > distinguish physical and theological truth, e.g. (NOMA).
> >
> > Which means I *can* say mi zgana le za'i le'e xriso seljda cu djuno ko'a
> > goi le du'u le nu nalspeni gletu cu xlali .i ku'i mi na jinvi ja krici
> > ko'a, which is really all I wanted.
>
> I think you can't.
>
> To me the multiple epistemologies allow for things like explaining
> whether you arrived at your conclusions using only constructive
> proof or whether you allowed reducio, what kind of system you used
> for the reasoning, etc. To me, theology doesn't count as reason,
> and no one can djuno anything about it, only krici/jinvi/se mallijda.


ja'o xu do na'e tugni mi .e la djan.



-- 
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();