Re: Truth-ambiguous djuno [was Re: Summary so far on DJUNO]

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

>[snip]
>>I think that goes even beyond Lojbab's version. It would mean
>>something like "x1 entertains proposition x2 about x3 derived from
>>possible epistemology x4". Why keep the keyword "know" for such
>>a different concept?
>
>It was intended to be an examination of what would result if all
>assertion or belief of the truth of the x2 or the validity of x4 in
>producing truthful statements was dropped from djuno.  It was supposed
>to be strange by acknowledging the imperfections of epistemologies.

The more Erik writes, the more convinces that I am that he is say9ing what
I have been trying to say aall along, in which case it does not "go beyond
Lojbab's version".

As for "why use the keyword 'know'?" - because Erik used it in his version
of the place structure.  After all, the normal meaning of "entertain"
is just as far from this as the normal meaning of "know".

I think that "entertain" is a bit too weak in any event.  There is some
tie between the x4 and the x1 of djuno, so the speaker must actually be
applying the epistemology, even if he recognizes its possible limits in
generating truth.   Generally we entertain concepts (not propositions)
without consideration of epistemology.  "know" implies at least that,
if the epistemology is accepted as valid, then the x2 is true under a
metaphysyics consistent with that epistemology.

There is no way to convey the meaning intended using brief English words
without using some word(s) in ways that are a bit unusual for English.
But they are valid English usages.

lojbab