RP writes in a spirit, afacs, of open debate. Without addressing his post adequately, may I just say this for the time being:- --- Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't know. I'd like to understand the three worlds distinction > better. So would I. >Is this right?tectonic plates exist in W1; the theory that their > movement plays an important role in geological change in W2; and Smith's > puzzlement over this theory in W3? No. This is not, if I understand this correctly, right. On P's theory:- a. the actual material or physical existence of "tectonic plates" is a W1 fact, something that exists independent of any 'consciousness' [W2] or 'theory [W3] of this. b. >the theory that their > movement plays an important role in geological change in W2; and Smith's > puzzlement over this theory in W3?> is not P's view:- his view is (roughly) that once we invent such a "theory" [which involves a W2 process] we also invent at the same time a "theory" [which exists then also as a W3 object, with ramifications that may surpass or transcend our W2 understanding]. In P's terms an "object" may exist at all three levels: that is, a score to 'The Magic Flute' may exist in W1 as notation on a script and perhaps also in physically encoded memories etc.; also as W2 conscious mental states in so far as we witness a performance or recall a performance; also in W3 as an "object" that may be richer and deeper than any W1 or W2 version thus extant [even though 'encoded' in W1 and W2 forms, and not previously existing before these forms]. Donal ___________________________________________________________ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html