Re: Summary of summaries on DJUNO

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

la bab. poi na du la lojbab. cusku di'e
 
> Cannot be as written, since {djuno} was not specified as being
> absolute as was {fatci}.   Hence there must be an epistemology for `true'.

"Epistemology" = "theory of knowledge".  Knowledge requires an
epistemology, but truth requires a metaphysics.  ("Metaphysics"
is also used in a broader sense including epistemology.)
 
> Must be:
> 
>     "epistemology x4 convinces x1 that <true by epistemology x5 proposition>
>     x2 is true about x3"
> 
>     = "x2 is true by epistemology x5
>     and epistemology x4 convinces x1 that
>     x2 is true about x3".

Change "by epistemology x5 to "by metaphysics x5" and all is well.

> And since {djuno} has only four places, the epistemology places are
> presumably the same.

The nub of the problem, indeed.  Were it not too late, I would press
for adding just such an x5.
 
> *Both* are correct in the appropriate circumstances, such as
> 
>     Alice's mental state has been manipulated by outside forces.
>     Consequently, Alice does not like Bill, but Bill knows she does.

Hardly.  "Like" is being used polysemously: "like by underlying unforced
mental state" vs. "like by current mental state".  With such polysemy
you can prove anything:  "Charlie is dead-1, but he believes he
is not dead-2."  If G.S. is good for anything at all, it is good
for disposing of such simple fallacies as this.
 
>     Bill is subject to delusions;
>     Alice does not like Bill, but Bill is convinced she does.

This sentence has no polysemy, and shows why conviction is not
knowledge.
 
-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)