Re: BHA: Re: starting up DPF readings again.

[LH Engelskirchen <lhengels@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lewis --

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and particularly for your
explanation of ontological extensionalism.  On the first points
questions persist:

 >   I thought
 > the priority of absence means that the world could have no presences at
 > all,

My question is in what sense we can say that the world could have no
presence at all.  In what sense can we assert this?  What is the
transcendental argument to the possibility of no presence?  As a matter
of logic I can abstract from the properties of being.  That does not
establish the real possibility of totally no being.  What am I missing here?

 > Not all relations are imperceptible,

Do you have an example of a relation which is perceptible?

>  but are you suggesting that if
 > something is imperceptible then it is not real?


No, but there does seem to be a particular challenge to the ontology of
relations.

Howard



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---