RE: virus: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:10:30 -0600

At 10:01 AM 9/25/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>I don't think so. It is certainly widely viewed as confusion,
>between epistemology and ontology, but that particular
>dichotomy can be questioned, and there is only a logical
>fallacy if it is accepted without question. Personally, it
>makes a great deal of sense to me to connect the
>question about whether something exists with the
>question as to how we can know about it. Science
>certainly does so, and it is only classical Western
>philosophy (as far as I know) that does not.

I am not talking about theoretical things that can't be
detected. I'm talking about things that existed *before*
anyone knew about them, like the earth before there was any

>This may be an appropriate point for me to drop in
>one of my pet theories: most people are either
>subjectivists or objectivists[1]. That is, they tend
>towards one or other of the poles of a dimension of
>personality, like Jung's ones of thinking vs feeling,
>neurotic vs ??, extraverted vs introverted. Those
>who say that the concept of objective reality
>derives from subjective experience are subjectivists.
>Those who say that subjective experience derives
>from objective reality are objectivists. Those who
>are balanced, tending towards neither extreme, say
>you can look at it either way. Comments, please?

Do you know of anyone that would disagree with either

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus