Re: .i .uepei mi jai selke'u

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

>Lojbab to Goran:
>> In English when we say djuno, we are presuming universal agreement ob what i
>> knowable/true, but Lojban makes no such presumption.
>
>Retreading the same ground for the 100th time here, but I cannot see
>why one should accept your opinion about Lojban in this instance.
>English presumes universal agreement on (a) what is knowable/true,
>(b) what is a cat, (c) what is blue, (d) etc. And Lojban likewise
>presumes universal agreement on what is a cat, what is blue, etc.

For the most part, although with color words in particular we presume that
some form of BAI tag will be necessary, but could not settle on one as being
"basic" to the color words.

>So
>why should Lojban not presume universal agreement on what is
>knowable/true?

Well, for one thing because we have strong evidence that truth is subjective
as is knowledge, with significant differences among and even within cultures
as to"truth" regarding such thinsg as religion, politics, and human emotions.
Different epistemological methods give different sets of knowables, and some
epistemological methods will give a different answer to different people using
the same method (e.g. dreams).

Because I recognized that subjectivity and multiple and contradictory
epistemologies exist, I included the x2 on jetnu and the x4 on djuno.
Since they are there, Lojban does NOT presume universal truth on a given
se djuno, and not on a jetnu without specifying its se jetnu.

Maybe it is perverse, but it seemed metaphysically necessary.

lojbab