RE: virus: Social Metaphysics
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:43:27 +0100
> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>
> At 12:10 PM 9/30/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> >The point at which I came into this was when you said
> >that existence and knowledge are totally orthogonal. I
>
> I was only arguing against including knowledge in the
> definition of existence, since that seems to make the
> mind primary. Perhaps I was misinterpreting.
>
And I was arguing that arguments over whether mind
or matter is primary are absolutely unresolvable. If
you incline either way, your philosophical perception
is distorted. You are either an objectivist or a
subjectivist, while subject and object are both defined
in terms of the other, are mutually dependent,
absolutely equally fundamental. If you keep your
eyes open, you can see subjectivism vs objectivism
behind a high proportion of the arguments on this list
and in many, many other places. Such arguments
are doomed to go on forever -- or until the
participants learn to see both sides of the coin.
I think, for your edification :-) though there's no
way I could find the time to explain in each case,
I will send a short message labelling each such
controversy I see here, for a while.
Robin