A possible construction for djuno, jinvi

["Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>]

Let X be something that exists; a subject.  Let P(X) be
some proposition about X; an assertion.  Let E(P(X)) be a
function over the domain of propositions that returns the
values "true" or "false"; an epistemology.

Lojbab wants to (correctly) remind us that there exist an
unlimited number of functions E, such that for any P(X),
some E(P(X)) will return true, and some E(P(X)) will
return false.  True enough.  And reminds us that when we
say that we "know" P(X) by epistemology E, we generally
mean to assert two things: that E(P(X)) returns true, and
that we are aware of this.

There is no conflict here.  However, there seems to be
some confusion about what these imply for the usefulness
and meaning of things like {jinvi}, {fatci}, etc.  Here's
my attempt below.  Please tell me if any of these meanings
conflict in any way with (a) the baseline, (b) usage, or
(c) either postmodern or classical philosophy.  I don't
believe they do.

  {py. jetnu eby.}

  Epistemology E evaluates E(P) to be true.  Makes no
  judgment on the value of epistemology E.  If E is elided,
  it is assumed to be whatever epistemology would normally
  apply to the situation.

  {py. fatci}

  Proposition P is true "in the absolute"; This asserts two
  things: that some (unstated) epistemology E returns true
  for P, and that E is unstated because it is the one and
  only real epistemology, perhaps undiscovered.  It does /not/
  assert that no epistemology exists which evaluates P as false.
  It only asserts that all those that do are mistaken by some
  absolute standard (reality, ultimate truth, God, whatever).
  It makes no sense to put an epistemology place here, because
  the very meaning of the word implies that there is only one
  relevant one in the universe.

  Note: Non-objectivist epistemologies would always evaluate
  the proposition {py. fatci} itself as false.  Rand would
  assert that {le du'u aby. du aby. cu fatci}.

  {ko'a jinvi py. xy. eby.}

  ko'a opines that proposition P(X) is true /by some unstated
  epistemology/ by "evidence" E.  E does not have to be an
  epistemology in this case, only some other proposition that
  seems to support P(X).  "I think Apirin is effective for
  headaches because it cures mine".  I know that this mere
  anecdote is hardly a valid epistemolgy; it's not even one
  I hold.  But it does seem to support the contention, so I
  opine that my actual epistemology (which I don't have time
  to use at the moment, or which I may not even have) would
  probably evaluate it true.  I am not actually asserting in
  this case that {py. jetnu} by any epistemology; I am only
  stating that I suspect it is because of "evidence" E.

  {ko'a djuno py. xy. eby.}

  Asserts two things: 1. {py. jetnu eby.}, i.e., E(P(X)) returns
  true; and 2. ko'a is aware of both P(X) and E(P(X)).  It does
  not in any way imply that {py. fatci}, or that anyone other
  than {le djuno} knows, or that any other E would return true.
  The "assumed" E if elided is simply whatever E {le djuno}
  would normally apply to the situation.  If {la djan. djuno
  le du'u mi speni la djein.}, he knows I married Jane because
  he was at the wedding, or he sees us together and I introduce
  her as my wife, or simply because I told him and he trusts me.
  If he chose some other epistemology (say, he went to city hall
  to verify the records and discovers that we had faked it all),
  then he would now know /that/ proposition by the new epistemology.
  It could still be said that he previously /knew/ we were married
  (by the older, mistaken epistemology--perhaps that's not normal
  Enlgish usage, but so what?), but now he knows we faked it.  The
  sentence above changed from a true one to a false one not
  because the underlying facts changed, but because the elided
  epistemology changed.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC