Subject: Lojbab's metaphysical neutrality.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:41:34 EST

Good exposition and nobly motivated. But I'm keepin' m'seegar still.
{djuno} can't, of course, do the work of {jetnu}, since it involves in 
addition belief and evidence, neither of which apply to {jetnu}. In every 
epistemology worthy of the (misapplied) name, there are truths that no one 
even believes, let alone knows, and ones that they believe but lack evidence 
for to know. But in the case of knowing, the truth of the claim must be in 
the same epistemology as the knowing, for it is the truth (and the evidence, 
of course) that add the epistemology to the bare belief. And so, if the 
epistemology in which x knows that p has implicit or explicit reference to x, 
so must the corresponding truth, even if x is not mentioned in a separate 
place -- he is then mentioned or implicated in the epistemology place. In 
short, x can't know that p in e and p be false in e.
BTW hearsay evidence is the report of someone else's claims, that someone 
else not being available, and not one's report of one's own experiences, 
which are perfectly admissable and indeed primary evidence (what else could 
be?).

The sequences {fatci jetnu} and {krici jinvi djuno} are very nice and do much 
of the work whicvh led to them, but they can't be pushed too far (actually, I 
suppose there should be an observer form parallel to {jinvi}, with the two 
threads reuniting in {djuno}).
It is, however, useful to have them brought out into the open (again?) to 
remind us of what the facilities of Lojban are