Bruno Marchal wrote:

> With those remarks what you say makes sense for me,
> Bruno

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
(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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to