Dear Stephen,
thanks for the consent.
I would use instead of your "ansatz" rather "Ersatz"
which means rather a non identical substitute, not an
implenishing of another person's 1st person opinion
(called for me a 3rd person view) when I absorb it as
my 1st person variant of it.

Thanks again

John M

--- Stephen Paul King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear John,
> 
>     It is refreshing to see that some people are
> willing to admit to the 
> implicit solipsism that is at the heart of
> everyone's notion of "being in 
> the world". ;-) We must understand that *all* that
> we have access to is 1st 
> person and any 3rd person representation is merely
> an ansatz of some 1st 
> person aspect.
> 
> Onward!
> 
> Stephen
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <everything-list@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
> 
> 
> snip
> > -----(excerpts):
> >> a "fuzzy feeling" that there "should" be a point
> to
> >> it all that I can
> >> understand, and that a sequence of events
> "should"
> >> occur only once.
> >>[ Implicit in these feelings is the assumption
> that
> >> there is some kind of
> >> "God" which designed the multiverse for some
> reason,
> >> and keeps track of all
> >> events. ]
> >>...
> >
> > How "eye-opening"!
> > I settle down with my restrictions that only MY
> WORLD
> > is of any interest to me, I don't care for
> anything
> > beyond "my views and understandability" (or
> rather:
> > observability).
> > This is an extended solipsism, but keeps me from
> going
> > crazy.
> > I acknowledge (don't go any further) the
> infinitness
> > of worlds and occurrences, beyond the "whatever
> can
> > happen" which is pointing to something like "in my
> > (our) views". I cut it off there, HOPING(!) that
> > "those worlds and events - really OUT there - do
> have
> > no influence upon our life.
> >
> > Implied: if they 'have', we would sense it and in
> that
> > case "those worlds and happenings" would enter
> what we
> > may call: "our world and observational domains".
> >
> > However in case of 'that' infinity I don't see
> Normans
> > 'second thought' of the requirement of any god.
> Before
> > infinity? a category mistake of human pretension.
> If
> > we cannot understand, we should not explain. Not
> by
> > fairy tales, not by mathematical formulae.
> >
> > I would not go beyond such limitations in my
> > speculation about my speculation.
> >
> > John Mikes 
> 
> 

Reply via email to