[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also have some trouble with the idea that we "share an I", as you put
it, as I don't know to what extent
I do share mine with anyone! My notion is, instead, that the "I" is
exactly what we DO NOT SHARE, what makes us different,
while Reality is all the rest:
Chris writes
> >>Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
> >>on "1st person" has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
> >>to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
> >>nothing has ever come of it.
>
> Its been the cornerstone of mode
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on "1st person" has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
nothing
has ever come of it.
Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's.
Hi George,
I see your point. Brandon Carter expressed recently the same idea, it
seams, when noting that Quantum Mechanics
suggests to him that "objective reality is NOT a realistic objective".
Perhaps, but that hardly implies that "subjective
reality" is any more realistic as an scientifi
Lee,
Bruno may not be very articulate and I may never forgive myself
for trying to answer for him but I think he is clear enough about
this:
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Cc: everything-list@eski
Hi Lee,
Lee Corbin writes:
Godfrey writes
> Hi Everythingers,
>
> Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating
posts
> on this troubling issue of "reality" and subjectivity
> so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
> right away. I have a bac
6 matches
Mail list logo
