x4 of djuno (was: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO)

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> > I may not have access to
> >> le djuno's metaphysics/episte,ology, and my own metaphysics/epostemology
 may
> >> not generate the same truths that le djuno's does.
> >
> >In that case, "djuno" would be inappropriate as a choice of gismu
> >to describe that situation.
> >
> >You may not like that conclusion, but it is forced upon you by
> >our agreed principles of respecting baselines and usage.
>
> I respect baselines.  Usage is an open question for at least 5 years.
> I generally do not consider usages that do not include the x4 place to tell
> us what the gismu "djuno" means.  In the case we are describing, the
> differences between my position and Jorge's seem largely to hinge on whether
> a knower-dependent epistemology is possible.

>From where I am standing, it looks as if Jorge, & I, and John,
and others think that, in accordance with the baseline, "djuno"
means "know". You, on the other hand, have sought to persuade us
that, contrary to the baseline, it means "be convinced that".

> (If I understand what you
> say above, then if the x4 speaks primarily to the truth of x2, then it is
> a metaphysics, whereas if it speakes to the knower knowing it, it is an
> epistemology.  I think that djuno's x4 is supposed to be an epistemology,
> but epistemol;ogies imply certain metaphysics (and probably vice versa).

Put another way, if knowledge is justified true belief, then
metaphysics would "speak to" the truth, and epistemology would
speak to the justification.

If x4 really is an epistemology place, then it should give you
the reason why the knower is so sure that x2 is true.

I gather that you think that the x4 place does give you
the reason why the knower is so sure that x2 is true.

On reflection, I think that you genuinely do understand the x4
as an epistemology place and John genuinely does understand it
as a metaphysics place. Both make sense, but the gismu definition
says "epistemology".

So I agree with you.