Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

>>But the true-x2 meaning could not be given to djuno without adding a
>>metaphysics place, which is not possible.
>
>Why is it not possible? How come there are several gismu that
>talk about truth and don't have a metaphysics place? (xusra, jinvi,
>kanxe, and many others.)

The first two are, because I consider them in themselves to be epistemologies.
xusra -> epsitemology of authority/by definition
jinvi I have already said many times was intended to be usable as an
epistemoilogy.

kanxe, and other words pertaining to logical operations are presumed to
have be associated with logical epistemologies/metaphysics.

>If I say:
>
>(1)            le du'u ti mlatu cu jetnu ko'a enai ko'e
>--More--
>                 "That this is a cat is true by metaphysics A
>                 but not by metaphysics B."
>
>Am I asserting {ti mlatu}? Consider:
>
>                 mi xusra le du'u ti mlatu
>                 I assert that "this is a cat" is true.
>
>Am I asserting that it is true by metaphysics A, B, some other?

Not specified.  I can make an assertion without any consideration of the
metaphysics involved.  It still remains an assertion.  Whether that
assertion is ACTUALLY true may depend on the metaphysics.

>If you can't talk about truth without forcing in a metaphysics place
>then lots of gismu are not possible. How about kanxe: "x1 is a
>conjunction stating that x2 and x3 are both true". True by what
>metaphysics? Is that gismu possible?

Since this is arepresentation of a logical operation, it presuems a
metaphysics that allows logical operatiosn to work, and it presumes
to relate two true statements x2 and x3 9which need not even be true in the
same metaphysics), with the conjunction that expresses the two.

lojbab