From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Mar 30 08:23:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 30 Mar 2001 16:23:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 10435 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2001 16:23:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2001 16:23:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Mar 2001 16:23:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3+3.4W/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2UGNqT10181 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:23:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:23:52 -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 > > > > 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. Do you trust the experts that Pluto is further out than Jupiter, or do you remain skeptical? > >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? Something about calling them "both probably wrong" hinted in that direction. Since you follow the philosophies of neither, I assumed you would have a different way to analyze the problems of a worker's state with an underdeveloped proletariat. You might not even choose to analyze it using those terms. > > > 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? Because we get to hear which belief system is making the mistake. Also, it's a lot more objectively accurate to say "X is true according to Y but not me", rather than for the speaker to collapse the argument to a binary value and blurt "X is false". It's more useful when discussing comparative ideas. ----- "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.