Le 22-nov.-06, à 20:01, 1Z a écrit :

> I think I am guilty of introducing the term
> "0 personal" in a conversation with David Nyman.

I remember you quoting that expression but I did introduce the term in 
the thread "roadmap short"
the 15 augustus 2006
and even before: 

(got the idea from Plotinus who wrote an entire treatise on it where he 
criticizes Aristotle on the personhood of the big one.)

Now I talk on this on the list in 2001 where I attribute a (non 
equivalent) 0-person notion to late James Higgo:
There, somehow, all notion of person's view are illusory so that only 
the zero-person would be real. (I don't believe this in the sense that 
those illusion are as real as we are ...).

> His point was that you can't have a 3rd-personal view without persons.
> I don't think that is necessarily an important distinction.
> The 0 personal view could coincide with the 3rd personal view.
> Just because you are a person, doesn't mean your personhood
> infects everything you see and do.

Except that incompleteness makes (with comp) any third person view 
limited and perspectival in a non trivial way. The zero-person reality 
(here arithmetical truth for example) transcends all person views. It 
is really the notion of truth, and it is not definable by any machine 
by Tarski theorem.



 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