Le 15-août-06, à 21:09, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
zero-person point of view will appear also to be unnameable. Names
emerges through the third person pint of view.
I'm beginning to see that, unnameability
Le 14-août-06, à 01:04, David Nyman a écrit :
There is another aspect, which I've been musing about again since my
most recent exchanges with Peter. This is that if one is to take
seriously (and I do) 'structural' or 'block' views such as MWI, it
seems to me that whatever is behaving
Bruno Marchal wrote:
1), 2), 3), 4) are theorem in the comp theory. Note that the
zero-person point of view will appear also to be unnameable. Names
emerges through the third person pint of view.
I'm beginning to see that, unnameability apart, it's the 'indexicality'
of the zero-person point
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
ASIDE, for the record, dual aspect science (from the previous post). I)
APPEARANCE ASPECT. Depictions (statistics) of regularity (correlations of
agreed 'objects' within) in appearances
II) STRUCTURE ASPECT. Depictions (Statistics) of structure of an
underlying
David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, and I despair (almost) of remedying this, even if I knew how. My
own attempts at linguistic 'clarity' seemed destined only to muddy the
waters further, especially as I'm really trying to translate from
personal modes that are often more visual/ kinaesthetic
5 matches
Mail list logo
