Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab:
> >>Now clearly there are some societies and cultures tthat do not recognize
> >>those statements as "true", so are they "truths"?  Can it be said that
> >>USAns don't really "know" these to be true, but merely "opine" them or
> >>"believe" them simply be4cause someone else choses NOT to accept
> >>them as truth?
> >
> >Those who do not recognize them as truths will not say that USAns "know"
> >them, that's right. They will not call them truths either. They obviously
> >will
> >disagree that they are self evident truths. What's the problem?
>
> Then they obviosuly would argue with translating the Declaration using
> "fatci".  If we want a CORRECT translation of teh Declaration, then using
> fatci will mislead someone from a different cultural basis.  They would insist
> that these "truths" are only suibjectively true.
>
> Now using Lojban djuno as I have argued it, we can still use "mi djuno"
> for "we hold" and do not need to use "fatci".  But we also don't have to seem
> relativistic by using "jinvi" because the founders who "held" those truths
> did indeed presuppose them, and jinvi is too weak a claim.

At last you are in agreement with the rest of us then. It follows
from what the rest of have been saying that if the founders
presupposed the beliefs to be true, then "mi djuno" would be an
appropriate framing predicate.

--And