Le 19-oct.-06, à 13:58, 1Z a écrit :

>
>
> David Nyman wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>>> This *is* ecumenicism. The buck stops here. What higher
>>> court of appeal is there , than consideration of the nature of
>>> EVERYTHING?
>>
>> Touché!
>>
>>> If Bruno isn't reifying numbers, he's in trouble.
>>
>> And if the materialist isn't reifying the observables, he's right in
>> there with him.
>
> Obviously the materialist is reifying matter.
> But then we can *see* material things.



You are lucky. I see *appearance* of matter, but I don't see existing 
primary matter. The existence of this one has to be postulated. But I 
have already criticize your "non-definition" of primary matter. I find 
that concept far more nebulous than consciousness for example, which 
certainly exists as a receptacle of the appearance. I don't doubt about 
those appearance.





> Reification pers e is not the problem; the problem
> is reifying what is invisible/uninteractive.


I agree.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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