Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

Just to look at the definition one more time (to refresh my memory):

djuno [ jun ju'o ] know
     x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4

So something like "I know (fact) cesium has an atomic weight of 55",
"I know I went to the store yesterday", "I know 6+3=9", or "I know
that Fred says he went to the store yesterday".

This seems a little inconsistant with fatci. Or is it not a safe
assumption that one must also be able to use the x2 value as the x1 value
of fatci?

fatci [ fac ] fact
     x1 (du'u) is a fact/reality/truth/actuality, in the absolute

fatci seems to say that a fact refers to some kind of absolute
scale, and djuno seems to say that one can refer to fact relative
to some system of thought.

fatci as defined seems totally useless to me.


Rob Z.
--------------------------------------------------------
Were it offered to my choice, I should have no objection
to a repetition of the same life from its beginning, only
asking the advantages authors have in a second edition to
correct some faults in the first.
-- Ben Franklin