Subject: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances.

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:13:44 -0500

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.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org