Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:36:30 -0600 (CST)
From: viren viven murthy <vvmurthy-AT-midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: RE: de-onts


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-AT-uri.edu> 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-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> -- 
> Mervyn Hartwig
> 13 Spenser Road
> Herne Hill
> London SE24 ONS
> United Kingdom
> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
> Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---