Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Rob Zook <rzook@INFORMIX.COM>]

At 03:15 PM 1/23/98 GMT+0, And Rosta wrote:
>> At 04:33 PM 1/21/98 GMT+0, And Rosta wrote:
>> >> >3. "Knowing", unlike the official place-structure of "djuno", has
>> >> >   no "epistemology" argument. [As John has pointed out, this is
>> >> >   not actually an epistemology argument but a metaphysics argument.]
>> >>   That depends on your definition of "metaphysics" - as I reported,
>> >> epistemology is the subcategory of metaphysics dealingw ith how we know
>> >> what we know.
>> >
>> >I know, and I gather that therefore most of us think "epistemology"
>> >inappropriate as a label, preferring "metaphysics" = "model of the
>> >world, of how the world is and works".
>>
>> I think we'll need a poll to justify that. Metaphysics seems
>> to inclusive.
>
>Presuppositions and the x4 place apart, "djuno" means "x1
>believes x2 to be true about x3".

Absolutely not. Krici means belief, djuno means know.

krici:
x1 believes [without evidence] that belief/creed x2 (du'u) is
true/assumed about subject x3

djuno:
x1 knows fact(s) x2 (du'u) about subject x3 by epistemology x4

You apparently want to re-write djuno.


>To me, an "epistemology" place would give "Because of x4, x1 believes
>x2 to be true about x3", i.e. the reason for the believing,

Believing does not mean the same thing as knowing. A person can
"believe" any damn thing they want to. I can belief I can fly, or
that the sky is purple, or that cows produce Guiness Extra Stout from
their teats. A person can only "know" _facts_. I cannot "know" cows
produce Guiness Extra Stout from their teats. For that does not
represent a true fact in any system of knowing facts.

One can only know justified true beliefs. Anything else distorts
the meaning of "know". Regardles of the many ways one can use
know in English. djuno means to know facts.


>while the intention for the x4 is that is be X in
>"X1 believes that because of x4, x2 is true about x3", i.e.
>x4 is the worldmodel according to which x2 is true.

Rewrite both your statements as:

In of system of knowledge x4, x1 knows true fact(s) x2, about x3.
x1 knows true fact(s) x2 about subject x3 in system of knowing x4.

and I would agree.


>To my mind, "metaphysics" is vague, but "epistemology" is
>positively misleading.

I must disagree most emphatically.


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