From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 18 1999 - 21:51:02 MST
'What is your name?' 'Damien Broderick.' 'Do you deny having written the
following':
> Does that account make `time' a quale? If it's valid, maybe it has to,
> since there's no *ontological* condition underpinning the term `time'
> *except* experience of such transitions. (But I would hate it if that led
> to some brainless New Age formulation of the `wow, you make your own
> reality, man' type.)
On a somewhat related note, I hit upon an amusing counter to people who
argue that reality is socially constructed based on our beliefs: Most
people don't actually *believe* that, so if it's true, it's false in the
world we have ACTUALLY constructed. It could only be true in some
"realist" sense, which social constructivists wholeheartedly reject!
I have a dream of one day taking Rorty, Putnam, and other American
pseudo-relativists, mixing their ideas together in a book with a little
plain old conservativism, and spitting out the results. Could be
interesting.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:08 MST