Re: virus: Social Metaphysics

Tadeusz Niwinski (tad@teta.ai)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:11:21 -0700

David McF wrote:
>At 01:15 PM 9/25/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>>
>>>I didn't mean to imply that. I believe that some parts of
>>>objective reality lie entirely outside of anyone's (or any
>>>observer's) perceptions, e.g. I think some stars probably
>>>exist outside the lightcone of any and all conscious observers.
>>
>>Why? Doesn't that alter the common definiton of objective?
>>It seems to me you are now using definition:
>>
>>1) Derived from the material and not the mental
>
>What do you mean by "derived"?

And it all started with David's simple suggestion that we look at the
following statement:

>1. Objective reality is consistent.
>
>One camp thinks that it is very important to hold this statement as true,
>while the other camp is saying that assuming it is true might make one
>blind to certain parts of reality where it isn't true.

Can we make a list of primary concepts (ie. not derivable from other
concepts) first?

I move that REALITY is a primary concept. Once we agree that it is, we may
start looking at it's properties. If we do not agree, then we can look for
a definition of Reality based on other primary concepts.

I don't think we can get anywhere without an agreement on primary concepts
we use.

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159