From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Mar 29 21:26:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 05:26:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 1091 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 05:26:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 05:26:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 05:26:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3+3.4W/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2U5Qg107819 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:26:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:26:42 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: Value Yourself From: Value Yourself On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > > > And why would we want to claim those bad scientific stances > > > as truths? > > > >Because they are accepted as Truth by all learned men except a few kooks > >before the paradigm shift. > > You are confusing me. Are you saying that truth is whatever > learned men say is truth? That's how a culture defines "truth". What's your definition? > >Each one assembles the raw data into a different model. These models > >conflict. There hasn't yet been a moment where one side sees the error of > >its ways and joins the other side. What are our options? Who owns the > >license to the imprimatur of "truth"? > > Neither, of course. Each of them will claim to know the truth, and > each will claim that the other doesn't. That conflict does not > turn both or either position into truth. So we have at least 3 positions on the issue; Trotsky, Mao, and Llambias. Hence, I think, at least three values for djuno x4. > > > >And if one of them makes as assertion, doesn't it need the x4 place > > > >filled up? > > > > > > What kind of assertion? Most assertions don't have an epistemology > > > x4 place. Are you saying that we must accept every assertion as a > > > truth? > > > >Nearly all assertions have really have tacit x4. > > You misunderstood me. I meant that most Lojban predicates don't > have an epistemology place. I agree that every assertion can make > sense only within an epistemology, but mentioning it doesn't > add much. You can't escape language through language. I think it makes sense, and is desirable, when you have statements that contradict with each other. Each one may be "provable" within a body of knowledge, or given certain assumptions. This is the case even when a third party trivializes the issue and calls both sides damned fools. ----- "The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give man something with which to compare himself; and he had created man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.