--- In WittrsAMR@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@yahoogroups.com, "BruceD" <blroadies@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > SWM wrote:
> > >
> > > "everything in the universe is physical: some of it is also mental."
> >
>
> Stuart is right. That was a misattribution of something I said.
>
>
>
> > I'm wondering on what basis he choose this rather than "everything > in
> > the universe is mental: some of it is also physical."
> >
>
> The reason is that I believe that what I wrote is true (though I don't deny that it's controversial) while its converse that you suggest above as a substitute is quite obviously false, Spinoza, Fechner, and Galen Strawson notwithstanding.
>
> W

I (probably wrongly, so you tell me) used to think (haven't thought about it for a long time) that Spinoza's doctrine of mode parallelism might (might) be thought of as a version of a wedding of the correspondence and coherence theory of truth such that insofar as we have correspondence we assume a sort of parallelism and insofar as we have coherence, we have something like the mental mode being what it is, even though the Spinoza, like moderns, had some sort of identity theory when defining mind as the thought of the body, which does sound idealistic in one sense and downright modern in another.

Cheers,
Budd

=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/