Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

At 02:02 AM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Rob Z.:
>>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.
>
>For many people fatci is totally useless.  It is in the language for only
>one reason (based on the long-ago discussion with pc that brought in all

Who does <pc> refer to?


>this epistemology stuff).  That reason is that, if jetnu has an
>epistemology plk placem there is no way to talk about such a thing as a
>fatci, which is independent of epistemology.  Some people may choose to
>talk about same (especially certain kinds of philosophers, and maybe
>people arguing about the semantics of djuno %^) - after all, it seems
>that Jorge is attempting to claim that <djuno implies jetnu with
>corresponding sumti> is a fatci).

Well, I'm think some confusion seems to have arisen because "knowledge"
does not seem like a very static entity. A claim of knowledge can only
exist for a certain interval. Almost all "knowings" get revised at
one point or another. So saying that I would think that djuno implies
jetnu within a specific epistemology within a specific space-time
interval.


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