Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> With those remarks what you say makes sense for me,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Oh hurrah, then there is finally light at the end of the philosophic
tunnel for me :D  Trying to learn this stuff is just a matter of
becoming a baby again... the baby just has to keep painfullly throwing
himself at the stuff and after enough ga-ga-goo-goo sounds the baby
finally starts to speak a few words that make sense.

In other words:  I need to study, study, study ;)

Let me just test out what I think is the key point.  It's this.  Three
ontologic levels:

(1)  Abstract entities of universal applicability (eg Math/number)
(2)  Abstract entities of limited applicability   (eg Alphabet, Chair
concept)
(3)  Concrete instances (eg specific Chair)

Only (1) is real.  (2) and (3) are cognitive interpretations or
constructs.  True yes?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to