Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>But it's NOT true that Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker Street, because
>Sherlock Holmes is not and never was alive.  I know that he lives ONLY
>by contemplating a known-false (i.e. fictional) epistemology.

If you really think that "S.H. lives on Baker Street" and "S.H. lives
on Wall Street" are equally true or false, then I don't know what to say.
What is the difference between them? Call that difference property X
if you think "truth" does not apply. Then the x2 of djuno needs to have
that property, unlike the x2 of krici or jinvi. I can say "Lojbab believes
that S.H. lives on Wall Street", but I can't say "Lojbab knows that S.H.
lives on Wall Street", because I know that he doesn't live there.

> And I know he
>"lives" only by presuming the timelessness of literature, since the
>Victorian era ended almost a hundred years ago.  I don't even know if
>there still IS a Baker Street in London.

Right. There's no problem there.

>The only way I can make x2 true in a statement about Sherlock Holmes
> as-real is if I limit the universe of discourse to AC Doyle's works (which
> I did not explicitly, nor to my knowledge implicitly do).

Well, not limit it to it, but yes include it.

>Now someone can
>say that invoking an author of fiction as an epistemology implicitly
>invokes his fictional world as the metaphysical universe.

Yes.

> But I nefver gave
>any indication that my epistemology was invoking a fictional world.

Well, you did mention an author of fiction. That's a pretty strong
indication.

> Thus
>you have no basis FROM MY STATEMENT to treat an invocation of AC Doyle as
>an epistemology any differently from an invocation of Albert Einstein (who
>do far as I know never published any fiction).

Yes I do, because I know that Doyle wrote fiction, and Doyle appeared in
your statement. Even if you hadn't mentioned Doyle, your mention of
Sherlock Holmes would have been enough.

>If you want to call a statement TRUE you MUST qualify it by the metaphysics
>or I have no idea what you mean.

I'll keep that in mind. Most people figure it out from context.
Do you need me to qualify it by the metaphysics if I want to
call an animal CAT as well?

co'o mi'e xorxes