Re: Are First Person prime?

From: 1Z <>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:58:29 -0700

David Nyman wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > All right. (I hope you realize that you are very ambitious, but then
> > that is how we learn).
> Yes, learning is my aim here.
> > My terminological problem here is that "experience" and "knowledge"
> > are usually put in the "epistemology" instead of ontology. Of course I
> > know that you (and George, perhaps Stephen and Lee) would like to make
> > primitive the first person notion(s) ... or the first persons
> > themselves ?
> > To be sure I have some problem to interpret this.
> I'll try to nail this here. I take 'ontology' to refer to issues of
> existence or being, where 'epistemology' refers to knowledge, or 'what
> and how we know'. When I say that our 'ontology' is manifest, I'm
> claiming (perhaps a little more cautiously than Descartes): 'I am
> that which experiences here'. I take these to be an ontological
> continuum or set of equivalences, not properties: I ->experience ->
> here. For reasons of economy, I see no need to postulate any other
> ontological status.

What about all the stuff that appears, subjectively , to be not-me ?

If I ignore it, I am not making full use of my only epistemologial

If I treat is as 1st-personal as well as third-personal, I am
overcomplicating things.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 15:00:32 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST