From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Mar 27 12:33:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 27 Mar 2001 20:33:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 21051 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2001 20:33:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Mar 2001 20:33:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Mar 2001 20:33:09 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([209.8.89.184]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2RKX7v34656 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:33:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010327153141.00ac7580@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:36:40 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [lojban] Random lojban questions/annoyances. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:52 PM 03/27/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Lojbab: >At 05:00 PM 03/26/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >[....] >#>Whether this means that *I* can truthfully say "ko'a djuno fe homosexuality- >#>is-a-sin fo fundamentalist-jegvo-dogma", I'm not sure. I suppose the answer >#>is Yes. ># >#It seems key to me that ANYONE should be able to say that truthfully if >#indeed ko'a is satisfied with the dogma as a means of establishing truth. > >Hmm. So we haven't resolved this after all. If I don't accept that the >ve djuno entails the se djuno, but the x1 does believe that the >ve djuno entails the se djuno, then according to you I can honestly >describe this by DJUNO. How would this differ from BIRTI and >JINVI? birti requires no epistemology whatsoever. It is, to me, an emotional certainty that need have no basis outside of itself. a predication on birti itself might be a veldjuno. The difference to me between djuno and jinvi is in the x1s attitude towards the x2. If I jinvi something, I am admitting subjectivity and indeed the possibility of error as to whether x2 is indeed true or whether x2 is justified by x4. When I claim to know/djuno something by epistemology x4, I am not admitting that I could reach any other truth by that veldjuno. lojbab > > >#>I should add, BTW, that this conclusion would contradict both Bob >#>Chassell's message on this point & my response to it. ># >#I'm not sure how. > >Because I (mis)understood Bob to be saying that the ve djuno is how >the x1 comes to know the x2. How x1 comes to know x2 has no bearing >on whether x2 is true or true if another body of propositions are true.. > >#>That is, contra Bob, the ve djuno is not how you come to know the se djuno >#>but rather the body of propositions such that their truth entails the >#>truth of the x2. ># >#No, because that would entail only logically consistent >#epistemologies. One of the ways that X can djuno P while Y can djuno not-P >#is to use a logically inconsistent epistemology (which fundamentalist-dogma >#may qualify for %^). Dreams and astrology are both classically used >#veldjuno that yielded differing or even contradictory seldjuno to different >#djuno. > >Firstly, the propositions "my neighbour's dog told me P" and "everything >my neighbour's dog tells me is true" do logically entail P, so dreams and >astrologoy could be handled in a logically consistent way -- perhaps. > >But, secondly, if they can't be handled in a logically consistent way, how >can I distinguish instances of DJUNO from instances of BIRTI, >or JINVI, or KRICI? (I did venture an answer to this question myself, >while noting that it appears to conflict with entrenched usage.) > >#They thus very poorly are communicated through jetnu, which supports no >#observer dependency on the truth. jetnu needs a self-consistent >epistemology. ># >#Using krici instead of djuno seems to me to deny that the veldjuno is a >#valid source of evidence for truth or at least admits to skepticism as to >#that claim. > >Quite. The question is whether if one is indeed thus skeptical one can >nonetheless honestly use DJUNO. My inclination, given current usage, >would be to use JINVI. > >--And. -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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