Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>>>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.

So in your opinion, it would not make sense to have place structures like:
"x1 asserts that x2 is true in metaphysics x3", "x1 thinks that x2 is true
of x3
in metaphysics x5 based on grounds x4".

According to you, the metaphysics places there are redundant because
the one and only possible metaphysics to fill them is already a part of
the selbri? And yet it is perfectly possible to assert or opine that
something
is true in one metaphysics and false in another, isn't it? How do you
reconcile those two positions?

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

Really? So you cannot say something like:

        le du'u la cev cu vrude gi'e cimni cu kanxe
        le du'u la cev cu vrude kei le du'u la cev cu cimni
        "God is good and infinite" is a conjunction stating that
        both "God is good" and "God is infinite" are true.

Are the claims there associated with logical epistemologies/metaphysics?
Or is that an improper use of {kanxe}?

>>(1)            le du'u ti mlatu cu jetnu ko'a enai ko'e
 >>                 "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.

Then we agree. When you say {ko'a djuno ko'e} you are making
(among others) assertion ko'e without any consideration of the
metaphysics involved.

>It still remains an assertion.  Whether that
>assertion is ACTUALLY true may depend on the metaphysics.

Right. Exactly the same thing applies to {djuno} as I understand it.

co'o mi'e xorxes