Bruno,
right before my par on 'sharing a 3rd pers. opinion:

>> more or less (maybe) resembling the original 'to
>> be shared' one. In its (1st) 'personal' variation. (Cf: perceived
>> reality).

you included a remark not too dissimilar in essence, but with one
word in it I want to reflect on:

> The third person part is what the first person variant is a variant of.
> I don't pretend we can know it. But if we don't bet on it,  we become
> solipsist.

"Solipsist" !! I don't consider it a 'dirty word'. WE ARE solipsists, only
our 1st person understanding represents the world for us, nothing else.
I got that (and accepted) from Colin and use ever since the term (see
above as well): "perceived reality"
(I did not refer to that to Kim's question - sorry, Kim).
Our "variant" is a manipulated version of the portion we indeed received
- in any way and quality - by our 'mindset': the previous experience we
collected, the genetic makeup of reacting to ideas, the actual state of
our psyche (Stathis could tell all that much more professional...).
Yet THAT variant is our (mini?) solipsism: that's what we are.
So we should not fight being called a solipsist.
Without such there would be no discussion, just zombies' acceptance.

Respectfully
 John M



On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 17:41, John Mikes wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> About mechanism, the optimist reasons like that. I love myself
>>> because
>>> I have a so interesting life with so many rich experiences. Now you
>>> tell me I am a machine. So I love machine because machine *can* have
>>> rich experiences, indeed, myself is an example.
>>> The pessimist reasons like that. I hate myself because my life is
>>> boringly uninteresting without any rich experiences. Now you tell
>>> me I
>>> am a machine. I knew it! My own life confirms that rumor according to
>>> which machine are stupid automata. No meaning no future.
>>
>> (JM): thanks Bruno, for the nice metaphor of 'machine' -
>
>
> It was the "pessimist metaphor". I hope you know I am a bit more
> optimist, ... with regard to machines.
>
>
>
>> In my vocabulary
>> a machine is a model exercising a mechanism, but chacquun a son gout.
>
> We agree on the definition.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>> (JM): Bruno, in my opinion NOTHING is 'third person sharable' - only a
>> 'thing' (from every- or no-) can give rise to develop a FIRST personal
>> variant of the sharing,
>
> The third person part is what the first person variant is a variant of.
> I don't pretend we can know it. But if we don't bet on it,  we become
> solipsist.
>
>
>
>> more or less (maybe) resembling the original 'to
>> be shared' one. In its (1st) 'personal' variation. (Cf: perceived
>> reality).
>
> Building theories help to learn how false we can be. We have to take
> our theories seriously, make then precise and clear enough if we want
> to see the contradiction and learn from there. Oh we can also
> contemplate, meditate, or listen to music; or use (legal) entheogen,
> why not, there are many paths, not incompatible. But reasoning up to a
> contradiction, pure or with the facts, is the way of the researcher.
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to