From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Tue Mar 20 09:51:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 17:51:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 52740 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 17:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 17:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 17:51:37 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA02290 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:58:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:58:24 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances. Message-ID: <20010320125824.S3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010319131250.00c02230@127.0.0.1> <20010318183938.H3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.2.20010319131250.00c02230@127.0.0.1> <20010319140349.S3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <4.3.2.7.2.20010320120853.00c07150@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010320120853.00c07150@127.0.0.1>; from lojbab@lojban.org on Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 12:13:44PM -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell 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. 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