Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Don:
> la .and di'e cusku
> > Anyway, it seems to me as if you are getting distracted by some
> > peculiar obsession about the word "true". When I use "true" in
> > speaking of the true-x2 version of {djuno}, I use it in the same
> > sense as is involved in the definition of cmavo like:
> >   ja`a, na, ge, ga, go, gu, jei
>
> For any expression f by a is true only if the metaphysics M used by a
 evaluates
>  to true.  That is any expression is f is a function of M and M is a function
 of
>  a: f (M (a)).

Are you using normal syntax here? I have tried but failed to parse &
understand it.

> The important point to note that it is not possible for the expressor to
 change
>  the metaphysics of a simple statement.

Could it be done with a BAI?

>  This is were 'jetnu' comes in.  'jetnu'
>  provides an argument for a different metaphysics M' under which to evaluate f
>  for it to be true.  So we have jetnu (f, M').  Note that M' is not
 necessarily
>  dependent upon a.
>
> > For example,
> >
> >      ko`a djuno le du`u ko`e mlatu
> >
> >would be truth-conditionally equivalent to
> >
> >      ge ko`e mlatu gi ko`a djuno le du`u ko`e mlatu
>
> This is false.

It cannot be false. It is true *by definition*.

> Only 'djuno' is evaluated using the expressor metaphysics M (a).
>   The 'du'u' subexpression does not need to be evaluated to determine if the
>  knowee knows it, there must be only an epistemology to say how it is known.

I am not sure what you are talking about. {Djuno} as defined in the
quote above, or as defined by some other definition? I suppose you
don't mean the former, since what you say is obviously incompatible
with it.

> > Anyway this complaint is unfair. The metaphysics by which ko`e in
> > {ko`a djuno ko`e} is true is the same metaphysics by which {ko`a
> > djuno ko`e} is true. In other words, "If X djuno Y then Y". If you
> > get worried about "truth" then use logical connectives instead.
>
> jetnu (Y, M') /=> Y (M (a))
> An expression of Y is true by M' does not mean that I can say Y.

That seems reasonable. But I don't see what it has to do with what I
said.

> > I don't know what you understand by
> > 1.     le du`u broda cu "true"
> > but what *I* mean by "true" is something that would make (1)
>
> Again, use jetnu (Y, M') to switch the metaphysics context from M (a).
>
> > equivalent to (2).
> > 2a.     ja`a broda
> > 2b.     broda
>
> This is broda (M (a)) and this is not the same as broda (M').

Assuming that I have understood you correctly, then this is exactly
the point I was addressing.

According to the true-x2 version of {djuno}, {djuno ko`e} would be
true by metaphysics M only ko`e is true by metaphysics M.

Actually, I'd better spell it out more fully and accurately:

true-x2 version of {djuno} [current version]:
    1. epistemology x4 convinces x1 that P
       P: x2 is true about x3 by a certain metaphysics
AND 2. P

Clauses (1) and (2) are true by the same metaphysics, though this is
not necessarily the one you are calling M(a), which I take to be the
one obtaining at the level of the illocutinary act.


> > You have in effect been saying that that {djuno} means
> >    epistemology x4 convinces x1 that x2 is true of x3 by a certain
> >      metaphysics, M
>
> This is correct.  This still does not say that x2 is true nor is it necessary.

I realize this. So what? Does anyone dispute it?

--And.