Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 30-juin-06, à 21:06, John M a écrit :
>>"I agree. Other people are part of the model of the
>>world we form. And in the same way the existence of
>>myself, as a durable entity, is also a part of that
>>Does this agreed double(?) statement not rub too close
> I agree, and, with all my respect to Brent, I would say it is an
> illustration of a typical "error" of the *first* person. Because she is
> unable to convince herself (neither in some personal third person way,
> nor in any first person ways) of the existence of another, she forgets
> she can correctly bet on that "others". And this even if with comp we
> can prove (communicate to oneself in a third person way) that the
> *correctness* of that bet is necessarily of the type of serendipitous
That's not contrary to my conception at all. I certainly do "bet" on the
existence of others, and
of chairs and tables and stars and electrons and myself, and all for the
essentially the same reasons.
I don't understand the conjunction of "necessarily" and "serendipitous".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at