Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

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

Lojbab:
> >To repeat from earlier messages, there is a linguistic phenomenon, called
> >"subjectivity", which has to do with the involvement of the *speaker* in
> >the utterance meaning. And it is possible for the speaker to sympathetically
> >take on the being of one of the "characters" being spoken about. It is a
> >well-known and well-studied phenomenon. The speaker changes
> >identities. This accounts for all of the exceptions to the standard story
> >about "know".
>
> And Lojban has a means of explicitly marking linguistic subjectivity,
> or maybe even two.  The whole debate about se'i/se'inai and empathy
> had to do with this.  I added those because I felt that unmarked
> subjectivity was wrong.

Good. So I think there therefore is unanimity that the putative exceptions to
the definition of "know" are marked, and exceptional themselves, and
involve a kind of figurative usage.

> >> But we all seem to be agreeing that fatci is reltively
> >> useless simply BECAUSEW there is little that is absolute fact,
> >
> >Jorge & I certainly don't agree with that.
>
> By the definition of fatci, if there exists a metaphysics under  which
> something is not true, then it is not a fatci - a truth-in-the-absolute,
> whcih is what I mean by "absolute fact".

Even if this is correct, I fail to see why it renders {fatci} useless.
Unicorns are every bit as rare as fatci, but you wouldn't claim that
{pavyseljirna} is useless.

As for your definition of {fatci}, it depends on what you mean by
"metaphysics". If it means "how the world works", then the definition
makes perfect sense and seems hugely useful. If it
means "a model of how the world works, which can potentially given
credence to", then what you say would be nonsensical. Or, if -
incredibly (or, rather, alas, all-too-credibly) - you do intend that
latter sense of "metaphysics", then I must alas concur in the view
that fatci is not very useful, and furthermore wonder why anyone gave
it such a stupid definition.

On the other hand, only the former meaning could possibly be glossed
by "absolute fact", so I am at a loss to understand your intention.

Just to clarify, the ambiguity of "metaphysics" is a systematic one.
"Biology" for example can mean the mass of living things, or the
practise of studying living things and construcitng models of them.

--And.