David Nyman wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > All right. (I hope you realize that you are very ambitious, but then
> > that is how we learn).
> Yes, learning is my aim here.
> > My terminological problem here is that "experience"  and "knowledge"
> > are usually put in the "epistemology" instead of ontology. Of course I
> > know that you (and George, perhaps Stephen and Lee) would like to make
> > primitive the first person notion(s) ... or the first persons
> > themselves ?
> > To be sure I have some problem to interpret this.
> I'll try to nail this here.  I take 'ontology' to refer to issues of
> existence or being, where 'epistemology' refers to knowledge, or 'what
> and how we know'.  When I say that our 'ontology' is manifest, I'm
> claiming (perhaps a little more cautiously than Descartes): 'I am
> that which experiences here'. I take these to be an ontological
> continuum or set of equivalences, not properties: I ->experience ->
> here.  For reasons of economy, I see no need to postulate any other
> ontological status.

What about all the stuff that appears, subjectively , to be not-me ?

If I ignore it, I am not making full use of my only epistemologial

If I treat is as 1st-personal as well as third-personal, I am
overcomplicating things.

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

Reply via email to