Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Engdahl, Rod" <engdahl@VISA.COM>]

 ----------
>From: And Rosta
>To: Engdahl, Rod
>Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO
>Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 7:07AM
>
>Rob Zook:
>> >Either way, this point is
>> >a refinement of my more general point, which is that DJUNO means
>> >"know" AND has a metaphysics place.
>>
>> I think we lose something here if we start using metaphysics and
>> epistemology interchangibly. The gismu list calls the x4 place
>> the epistemology. Pray, let us stick to that, things are confused
>> enough as it is.
>
>The point of calling it a metaphysics place is that we have
>established in this discussion that "epistemology" is a confusing
>label for the intended sumti meaning, and that "metaphysics" is
>clearer.

I haven't received all of the metaphysics vs. epistemology thread, but
the simple (perhaps too simple) explanation I was given in the survey
course I took was:

metaphysical discussion is discussion of _what_ we "know" (a term to be
dealt with later)
epistemological discussion is discussion of _how_ it is that we "know"
it.

The question in my mind is one of the intent of X4 in djuno:

if the intent is to describe the domain within which X2 is known, then
metaphysics is what is involved by this rather simplistic distinction.
if it is actually intended to convey how it is that X1 came to "know"
X2, and therefore can make the claim to "know" X2, then epistemology is
appropriate, and does indeed make the discussion more complex.

This may raise another question, because it becomes possible that, in
certain circumstances, X3 could refer to metaphysics, forcing X4 to be
epistemology:
X1 knows X2 about LIFE (X3 =~ metaphysics) by X4 =~ epistemology.

ps:  i have been wrong before.  it would not dismay me to have it happen
again.
co'o mi'e rad.