Zaljohar wrote this, which at first sight seems reasonable:

"One, Two, Three, ... , are words we use to denote the multiplicity of
discriminable objects (objects that one can see the difference between
them and their surrondings)"

But there is a problem with the proposal that IF an object can be
discriminable THEN it must be countable:

The problem is with the nature of 'surroundings'. The surroundings are
necessary because they allow discrimination to take place. However, the
surroundings themselves must be discriminable or we would not be able to
count anything that appears in the surroundings. But if the surroundings
are discriminable then they must also be countable. But countable by
what? "meta-surroundings"? (and so ad infinitum)..

A friend recently explained to me that post-modernism is where one's
meta-narrative is that there is no meta-narrative. Obviously this
raised a contradiction, but then I realized that this was a modernists
disproof of post-modernism, and as such was invalid.

Then I started to think about why I accept modernism as so infallible.
The only answer I could come up with was "it just feels right!"

What do you think?

Stephen