From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 05:22:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1667 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.234) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 14:23:47 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:22:43 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] the reason for x4 of {djuno}? Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2001 13:22:43.0349 (UTC) FILETIME=[808F9450:01C0B91C] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e > > Are you saying that truth is whatever > > learned men say is truth? > >That's how a culture defines "truth". What's your definition? I guess I am less of a conformist. I tend to be skeptic of anything claimed as a truth, unless it is something really mundane such as Canberra being the capital of Australia, which I readily accept as true, although in this case I don't even have to rely on authority as I was actually there once. >So we have at least 3 positions on the issue; Trotsky, Mao, and Llambias. Wow! First pc and John, now Trotsky and Mao, I can't complain about the company! >Hence, I think, at least three values for djuno x4. I don't really know what you're talking about, I am not very familiar with Trotsky's or Mao's doctrines. What part of what I said contradicts their positions? > > 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. Right, but how does calling those statements "mistakenly true" instead of "false" help? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.