Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>Now clearly there are some societies and cultures tthat do not recognize
>>those statements as "true", so are they "truths"?  Can it be said that
>>USAns don't really "know" these to be true, but merely "opine" them or
>>"believe" them simply be4cause someone else choses NOT to accept
>>them as truth?
>
>Those who do not recognize them as truths will not say that USAns "know"
>them, that's right. They will not call them truths either. They obviously
>will
>disagree that they are self evident truths. What's the problem?

Then they obviosuly would argue with translating the Declaration using
"fatci".  If we want a CORRECT translation of teh Declaration, then using
fatci will mislead someone from a different cultural basis.  They would insist
that these "truths" are only suibjectively true.

Now using Lojban djuno as I have argued it, we can still use "mi djuno"
for "we hold" and do not need to use "fatci".  But we also don't have to seem
relativistic by using "jinvi" because the founders who "held" those truths
did indeed presuppose them, and jinvi is too weak a claim.

>>The statement "la djan djuno X" must have the same truth value regardless
>of
>>what speaker says it, provided that the referents of the two sumti remain
>>cvonstant.  This is not true for English "know" as you have argued.
>
>What? I've never argued such a thing. As long as the speakers share the
>same world view the statement will have the same truth value.

Perhaps.

>It doesn't
>make much sense to talk about truth values if the speakers don't share
>the world view, because in that case they're speaking different languages,
 as it were.

Lojban is intended to be a language usable for communication between people
 whodo not necessarily share the same world view (i.e. intercultural
 communication)
though of course there needs ot be some commonalties.

>What do you mean by "the same truth value"? Do you mean
>in the absolute, independent of their world view?

If you say fatci, then that is what you are claiming.

>No matter how convinced
>the USAn is, if  they tell me:  "I know that it is self evident that all men
>are
>created equal", then I will disagree and say that to me it is not self
>evident.

Then don't use fatci, and be wary to remember the x2 of jetnu and the x4 of
 djuno.

We DON'T do this when speaking English, and you will find MANY people on the
net (I think of libertarians as being especially prone to this - pardon
my offense to any of you reading this) who consider certain truths to indeed
be "self-evident", "known", and indeed even "fact-in-the-absolute", without
acknolwedging that their readers may not consider those truths to be quite so
abolsute.

lojbab