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" http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10267.html the 15 augustus 2006 and even before: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10127.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10059.html (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: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01275.html 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. 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
