>>>"Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Laws of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed thing is a human invention, including the idea that it isn’t a human invention. The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. It’s all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world we live in. It’s run by ghosts. We see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past. Ghosts and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find their place among the living."
>>
>>Since there's no logical flaw in solipsism, it simply follows that physics etc are so good at describing and even predicting the not-yet-found properties of the world. Of course, as they are part of the same system.
>>
>>From that standpoint, it becomes irrelevant how you define the real. The above passage, though, shifts from laws of nature etc as ghosts, to ghosts of the dead, while pretending to make no distinction between them, and then inventing "the living" as if they weren't equally ghosts. The semi-logic pretending to be above logic?
>
>I don't think that paragraph is intended to be taken as logos.

I don't think that the intent matters. It gets lost, anyway. The reader has only the text. What's in the text is in the text, what is not is not.