peterdjones wrote:
> 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 ?

Good question. After having tried I am not so sure.

> 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

All of these statements can be understood in many ways
depending upon the context and the person. *I do not*
consider them *universally* true.

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

In the context of this discussion, 1) through 4) are
left, and especially 3).

>>> 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,

Thanks. We at least accomplished this.

> since you have not offered any explanation.

I am afraid I can't. I tried hard but you appeared to
reject all grounds on which I could have built one.
That's your freedom but I don't see what more I can do.
Finally I pointed that we did not share enough grounds
but even this did not seem to make it.

>>> [...] 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.

Note that you need a viewpoint to decide that a viewpoint
is more valid than another.

> If you cannot account for the existence of such a thing as
> a discussion *in* a discussion,

I think I can and I do.

> you are in trouble.

I don't think so. Even if it turns out that we cannot
discuss one with each other, I feel nothing wrong with
that. That's just life.

>> 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.

I feel that we are drifting off topic...


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