Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:13:44PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
> At 02:03 PM 03/19/2001 -0500, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > >If y'all are going to insist that djuno makes a distinction between "to be
> > > >aware of the truth or factuality of" and "be convinced or certain of",
> > > >you're going to need to rewrite the definiton, because that is _not_
> > > >what the current definition says.  The current definition being in
> > > >English, the meanings of the english words must be used.
> > >
> > > The current definition is NOT a single word, and the whole must be used to
> > > get the meaning.  There MUST be an epistemology, which COULD be
> > > belief.  But I can "know" something by one epistemology and "know" the
> > > exact opposite by a different epistemology, in Lojban.
> >
> >That seems to be directly contradicting what John has been saying.  I'm
> >fine with your interpretation, as it allows 'mi pu djuno' for something
> >I used to know but have been corrected on.
> 
> I don't know how what I say contradicts John.  With some specific x4 
> values, x2 can be true whether or not I know it to be false by some other 
> x4 value.  It is even plausible that some thing may be known to x under 
> epistemology w and not known to y under the same epistemology.  Such an 
> epistemology would not effectively describe objective reality since I have 
> postulated subjectivity in the definition of that epistemology.  jetnu, 
> which has no observer place, does not support subjective truth, whereas 
> djuno could.

<sigh>

Am I the _only_ person here who doesn't believe in this whole 'objective
reality' thing?  Or, at least, that no human being can percieve
'objective reality', even if it does exist?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ 	BTW, I'm male, honest.
Information wants to be free.  Too bad most of it is crap.  --RLP