Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab:
> >Since the keywords aren't defining, I don't see why they can't be
> >changed to better ones:
>
> because the keyowrds were the first thing about the gismu list that WAS
 baselined.  They could thereafter only be changed by convoluted debate and
 consideration.  They were frozen before we had even
> settled on what the words meant as
> conveyed in the place stuructures, much less before we started debatingw hat
> the words in the places stuructures meant.
>
> >I don't see why they can't be
> >changed to better ones: the language isn't changed; only the
> >documentation is.
> It is the documentation that is frozen, not the language.

I see. In that case perhaps it would be best to create some
non-baselined but more useful and less misleading documentation, and
leave the original documentation as Holy Writ to be consulted only
rarely.

> >> I did not put the speaker in a privileged position
> >> with regard to x2's truth; I did not say that x2 had to even be true - only
> >> that it had to be known by the epistemology x4.
> >
> >The problem with this is that it can't be "known" by any epistemology
> >at all unless it is true.
>
> Epistemology is defined as a means ofknowing.  Thus if there is an
> epistemology for something it MUST be known to those who subscribe to that
> epistemology (barring subjective epistemologies).

The logic of the latter sentence is flawed. If there is a means of
leaving the room it does not follow than anyone actually leaves the
room.

> Since what you feel is true and what I feel is true differ, you would have
> the truth of "john knows X" differ based on which of us said it, and that
> seems silly.

1. It certainly is silly. And it is certainly does not follow from my
favoured definition. The truth of "John knows X" depends on whether
X is true and not whether you or I feel X is true. Surely this should
long ago have been brought home by the many examples Jorge produced
to illustrate this point.

2. Please change "John knows X" to "ko`a djuno ko`e". This debate is not
any longer about what The English phrase means. It is about what the
Lojban phrase means.

> the truth of a proposition shgould be independent of the
> speaker and listener.

It is independent of the speaker and listener. I really can't
understand why you keep on thinking that I or anyone else thinks
otherwise.

> >Not so. You must additionally assume that that metaphysics is valid.
>
> I make no assumptions as to metaphsycial validity in defining the
> language.  fatci is defined as being true in the absolute, regardless of
> what metaphysics is considered.

See remarks above on "metaphysics" and "fatci".

> >I don't find your definition of {fatci} very convincing. Acording to
> >you, {ro da zo`u go da fatci gi da na jitfa de}. I, feel, though,
> >that {fatci} should be the same as what {jetnu fe zi`o} would
> >mean.
>
> But it is not, since we specifically added fatci to mean somethig else.

Again, this is a non sequitur. Your purpose in adding fatci does not
alone define what fatci means. You may, however, legitimately say: "I
advocate or recommend meaning M for gismu G, because G was originally
intended to mean M".

As you may have noticed, I am actually very respectful of that kind
of recommendation, but I do gag a bit when what is recommended
is too much on the silly side. (Not the case with djuno. Possibly is
the case for fatci, but I don't understand it yet.)

--And.