Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

>>It is at least as jsutifiable that
>>the truth of adjuno proposition should depend on the listener/reader.
>>But I feel that only the person identified in the sentence, le djuno,
>should
>>be relevant.
>
>le djuno is relevant. It has to be a person or some other entity
>with at least some capacity of cognition.
>
>--More--
>le se djuno is relevant. It has to be a true fact.

True to whom under what metaphysics.  In Lojban, only lo fatci that I deny
the existence of, is true under all metaphysics.  The metaphysics for
determining the truth of x2 can be distinct from the metaphysics for
evaluating the truth of the djuno claim since there are some metaphysics
that speak to the truth of one but not the other.

If the truth of x2 is relevant to the truth of the claim of djuno then there
would have to be a place for the metaphysics governing that truth, which
may be other-than one implied by the epistemology x4.

If x2 is true to the speaker and false to the listener, is the statement
about le djuno cu djuno x2 true or false?

>Our disagreement is not about any speaker-dependance of
>the truth. It is about whether the truth of the full bridi
>requires or not the truth of the x2 clause.

But that truth involves unstated variables that are metaphysically necessary
to the concept.

>What I find a bit distressing is your going back and forth
>--More--
>between conceding and not that the use of the _English_
>word "knows" entails a presupposition of truth.

You have argued that (as I understand it) Lojban djuno means the same
thing as English "know" which you claim entails such a presupposition.
But if you have a presupposition, then you have a presupposer. Who is that
presupposer?  The speaker, the listener, the guy who discovers a 10th planet
a hundred years from now?  I contend that the only presupposer who matters
in djuno is le djuno.  I think the same argument probably applies to English
"know" but I am trying not to argue about English "know" except that it seems
to keep on getting dragged back in by the fact that you want to define djuno
based on it (or at least interpret my definition in the gismu list based on it).

I am reasonable certain that I have now pinpointed that your requirement that
x2 be ture requires an extra place not part of djuno, being the metaphysics
that is used to determine that x2 is true, which And has agreed with me is
distinct from the x4 epistemology which convinces x1 that x2 is true.  He
has noted that you have not conceded this, though.

lojbab