From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 09:21:53 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> gts wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what you mean here by "frame of reference."
>
> ### Some people denied the possibility of the Earth being a sphere. They
> said it's impossible, because people living on the other side would simply
> fall off.
That would be a relevant argument if I were being absolutist about some
empirical hypothesis. But I am not being absolutist about any empirical
hypothesis. I am being a rationalist.
My views here about the primacy of the self/other distinction in relation to
logic and reason are very similar to those that most famous of rationalists,
Renee Descartes ("I think, therefore I am.")
> ### Did you say "self that shares something with the other"?
>
> Finally, you agree that the concept of self is a construct allowing
> varying degrees of overlap with non-self.
No, that is not what I agreed. A self that shares a sandwich with another
self is no different in principle from one who shares a portion of grey
matter with another self, provided that those selves are independently aware
of themselves.
> > To put it another way, if your "I" and the other "I" are truly
> > overlapping then you are one and there is no other.
>
> ### No wiggling out, please.
I wasn't wiggling out. I was clarifying in order to prevent exactly the sort
of misinterpretation of my words that appears above.
But I appreciate that you feel you've accomplished what you set out to prove
here.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:55 MST