Subject: Re: [PHIL] djuno: the key issue (was: [lojban] Random lojban questions)

From: "James F. Carter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> # (--snip--)
> So you deny that "crucially, the known must be true in the epistemology"?
> It is enough that the x1 claim that the known is true? So if on the basis 
> of our common epistemology you believed that Sydney was the capital
> of Australia, I could say "John djuno that Sydney is the cap. of A, fo
> our mutual epistemology"?

All you zombies are just figments of my imagination. I know what's real
and what's true, and if you claim that my djuno x4 doesn't entail x2, then
you're just wrong. 

However, you figments of imagination do have a tendency to make similar
claims (that I'm wrong) when I take you to task about entailment, and to
make sense of this nuthouse, I have to take into account a common thread or
pattern in how entailment goes. This pattern is mistakenly referred to as
``objective reality'', and statements seeming to match objective reality
are more likely to go unchallenged. 

Purely hypothetically I might consider how a figment of imagination might
think, and how it might in a limited sense be similar to how I, the
Ultimate Master, might think, and it's clear from usage that when you say
"djuno" about x1 = yourself, or x1 = someone else, you are imputing a
(baseless) arrogance to x1, in that x1 is the sole judge of whether x4
entails x2. 

This is And's definition version II.

Sorry to extend this already long-winded thread, but I can't imagine a
person so lacking in healthy solipsism, egocentricity and arrogance as to
embrace version I (that djuno x4 ``actually does'' entail x2 independent
of whether x1 does or doesn't believe in the entailment).

James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555
Email: [email-masked] http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)