Georges Quenot wrote:
> peterdjones wrote:
> >
> > [...] What we can be sure of is that
> > 1) we exist
> > 2) we are conscious
> > 3) there is some sort of external world
> > 4) there is some phenomenon of time.
> *You* are sure of that and of what it might mean. Please do
> not decide for others.

Is it possible for me to have a discussion with you ?
If the answer is "yes", you are conceding:

1) you and I exist
2) you and I are conscious
3) you are external to me and vice-versa

That only leaves (4), but I suppose all discussions take some time.

> > These are all quite problematical for Mathematical Monism;
> As *you* believe and understand them, certainly. *I* do not
> see any problem for mathematical monism (I do not need the
> upper cases) to make sense.

So you say. As things stand, I have to take your word,.
since you have not offered any explanation.

> > [...] Arguments should start with what you can be sure of.
> What "we" can be sure of (as well as what it might mean) can
> be very different from my viewpoint and from yours.

Viewpoints can differ without being equally valid. If you cannot
account for the existence of sucha  thing as a discussion *in* a
discussion, you are in trouble.

> In order to have a chance to make the point, arguments that
> *you* address to *me* should start wtih what *I* can be sure
> of and not with what *you* can be sure of. And vice versa
> indeed.
> What I can be sure of is probably "weaker" than what you can
> be sure of. It is likely to be quite different too. That must
> be why it can be compatible with more (or different) ideas.
> Georges.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to