On 2/4/2012 11:14 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2012 15:44, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
Is it inappropriate to use the "One" in an axiomatic form as part of a
theory, not that I am proposing the concept just that as a theory standing
on its own? It makes sense to me as it leads inevitably to ontological
implications that both firm up the theory of Neutral monism (as per Bertrand
Russell) and allow for the dualism (per Vaughan Pratt) that I am
I'm not sure, to tell you the truth. I must say that my intuition of
the centrality of "oneness" - what I've sometimes called the solipsism
of the One - is at the heart of my recent discussions with Bruno
around the general topic of "why am I me and not you?". But at the
same time, precisely as a result of those very conversations, I'm less
sure that anything directly communicable follows from that intuition,
unless it be a sharing of the intuition itself. Is a common intuition
an axiom? What is deducible from it, other than a vague sense that
somehow "whatever I am most primitively" will always find some
uniquely present conscious expression? If you can indeed employ the
axiomatic method to put more detailed flesh on these bones, it would
be most helpful.
My problem is that axiomatic renderings of theories or ideas in
general are almost impossible because of my memory and output dyslexia.
I simply do not think that way. :-( Let me think on this a bit more and
see what I can come up with.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at