RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Robin Faichney (
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:05:40 +0100

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 09:43 AM 9/25/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >BTW, I have to say, at the risk of reopening old
> >wounds, that you seem to be generalising
> >"objective" in exactly the way you generalise
> >"rational", to the point where, it seems to me,
> Imagine my frustration. Should I make up new words?
Better make up new ones than use old ones, whose
meanings the rest of us think we know, with new

> >these words lose their usefulness. I.e., in this
> >case, "objectively real" in your mouth seems to
> >mean no more than "real" in anyone else's.
> That is hard to believe, since I tried to explain what
> I meant by "objectively real" and there is no consensus
> on what everyone else means by "real". How could they
> be the same?
There is concensus meaning of "real" is not well
defined. That does not mean it does not exist, or
that it has no uses. Your explanation of "objectively
real" mentioned agreement among observers. So
how does a phenomenon that can have only one
observer fit in there? Hint: what would "subjectively
real" mean?