Re: knowledge and belief

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

la stivn. spuda mi di'e

> I find that I fall into neither the logically minded
> nor the pragmatically minded as you have described them.

mi spuda la stivn. di'e

Excellent!

> However, I am struggling with the use of <djuno>. I fear
> that you are projecting all

All?  Hardly.

> of the various definitions and semantics of the English
> word "know" on to the lojban word <djuno>.

Since the Lojban gismu is defined in terms of the English
word "know", I suppose that some degree of cultural or
semantic contamination is inevitable, especially in a
learner like myself.  But I suspect that this is a rather
peripheral issue with respect to our current debate.

> But <djuno> has only one (very terse) definition, is a
> word in a radically different language, and we are
> struggling to discover how to use it in a way which is
> distinct from other gismu, yet still has utility for
> description of se djuno (knowledge).

Your perception of the way that {djuno} ought to be
distinct - that it requires {le djuno} to be justified
in believing {le se djuno} to be true - seems overly
restrictive to me.  Defined in that way, IMO {djuno} will
have very little utility.

> Jorge suggests that the x4 place is superfluous;

Jorge?  Is that really what you're suggesting?  If so,
I disagree.  How can anyone know anything except by some
epistemology?

> I am trying to figure out what it tells us about the word;
> lojbab suggests that le nu visku or similar "epistemologies"
> will suffice.

My position is closer to lojbab's.  Indeed, when I suggested
that a schema might belong in the x4 place, I didn't mean to
say that schema belongs there _Instead_ of epistemology; I
meant to suggest that a schema might be one of many acceptable
epistemologies that could be used as {le ve djuno}.

co'omi'e markl.