Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:12:17 +0100

Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit : (to Jef)

> I think "objective" should just be understood as denoting subjective
> agreement from different viewpoints.

Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying "physically
objective" can be understood as denoting subjective agreement.
But frankly I do not believe that 17 is prime depends on any agreement
between different viewpoints (but the definition of 17 and prime of
But about physics I agree. And I know that you know how Vic Stenger
extracts a big deal of physics from invariance for change of
referential systems.

> I'd say experience is always "direct", an adjective which really adds
> nothing. An experience just is. If it has to be interpreted *then*
> you've fallen into an infinite regress: who experiences the
> interpretation.

I can understand why 1-experience seems direct, but I am not sure this
really make sense. As I said to Jef, infinite regression in computer
science can be solved.

> To call it an illusion goes too far. I'd say the self is a model or
> an abstract construct - but it models something, it has predictive
> power. If you start to call things like that "illusions" then
> everything is an illusion and the word has lost its meaning.



 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 Fri Dec 29 2006 - 10:12:41 PST

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