Discourse on Intercourse: Difference between revisions

On that predicate, it follows that as it is an ''[[a priori]]'' fact that a [[conference call]] must comprise more than one person (“a man cannot meet alone”, he quipped), to give effect to conference calls, the most basic irreducible ontology of the universe must contain ''multiple'' individuals. At least three, thought [[Büchstein]]: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of Descartes “thinking thing”, or “[[res cogitans]]”), one “meetee” (which [[Büchstein]] characterised primarily as a talking thing (“[[res verbositans]]”) and, since transparently neither of these would willingly meet without some kind of compulsion, a third person (usually a [[management consultant]] or [[project manager]]) to force the meeting to happen and assign actions and timelines at its conclusion (an “action-assigning thing” or “[[res bossitans]]”). In any case,  since they were all engaged on a [[conference call]], none of them needed to be God.

Rather than simply rebutting [[Descartes]]’ proof that there ''must'' be a God, by illustrating one was not necessary, [[Büchstein]] went further: “a universe in which [[conference call]]s necessarily exist,” he contended, “is logically inconsistent with the continued presence of an omniscient, benign, omnipotent deity”. He took this as an ''[[a priori]]'' proof of the ''non''-existence of God.

{{linkedin|04/09/19}}