Re: BHA: RE: de-onts

[viren viven murthy <vvmurthy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn and Tobin,

I enjoyed your explanation of "de-onts", but I was wondering whether both
of you understand this concept in the same way.  Tobin, you seem to
conceive
them as 'determinate non-being", while Mervyn, you seem to conceive of
them as absence in general.  So would I be correct if I said that
according to you (Mervyn), the lack of a sock on the Eifel Tower is a
de-ont without causality?

Best,
Viren

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

> Hi Marsh,
>
> >what does all this de-onting buy us?
>
> An open world, full of possibility and hope. (Unfortunately, though, you
> can't just 'buy' your way out of ontological monovalence.)
>
> Mervyn
>
>
> Marshall Feldman <marsh@xxxxxxx> writes
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Let me add my voice to the growing chorus of de-ont sceptics. The thing that
> >troubles me is that there is an unlimited number of de-onts for every ont.
> >Pierre is not in the cafe, but then again he's not Franciois, a table, or
> >standing on his head. Besides saying something is not something it's not,
> >what does all this de-onting buy us?
> >
> >       Marsh Feldman
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> --
> Mervyn Hartwig
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---