Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

la .and
>> 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.

K.

f is an utterance (e.g. 'ti mlatu')
a is the expressor of the utterance ('mi')
M is a metaphysics that is used to evaluate the truth of the expression (a's
 brain)

To evaluate if f is true, we need the metaphysics under which the utterance is
 made that is f is a function of M.  Again, the metaphysics is dependent upon
 the who expressed the utterance that is M is a function of a.

Giving, f (M (a)).

>> 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?

'jetnu' doesn't seem to have a BAI equivalent.  There is 'fi'o se jetnu' if you
 are so inclined.

>> >      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.

'djuno' as defined in the gi'uste, i.e. without a place for the metaphysics of
 x2 (returning to the point that something is true only by having a metaphysics
 under which to evaluate it).

> 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

The crux.  The baseline does not imply clause (2).

> 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.

Clause (1) is true under the metaphysics of the expressor, M (a).  There is no
 other metaphysics M' under which to evaluate (2).  That is why it is necessary
 to introduce 'jetnu' for this purpose.

With your scheme, does not it become impossible to say that someone else knows
 something that you disagree with:
    .i la bil. djuno ledu'u la santas. claus. klama kei folenu te cusku
Bill knows Santa Claus is coming by the epistemology that someone told him so.
 This would be evaluate to true under the baseline, even though if I said:
    la santas. claus. klama
This would be false, under my metaphysics Santa Claus does not exist.

ni'oco'omi'e dn.