Re: virus: Memetics, Intent, and Salvation

Eric Boyd (
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:16:34 -0500

Bob Seals wrote:

> Is "objective" reality consensual or is it actually an agreed upon
> reality by observation of natural laws separate from the Phenomena?

My answer: both yes and no.

Yes, becuase it is only our collective agreement that "what our senses
show us is really the way the world works" which makes "objective"
reality possible... without that agreement, all we have is individuals;
"I think, therefore *I* am"... but I don't know about the rest of you!

Yes, becuase each and every one of us is capable of observing the same
thing... repeatability of experiences, intersubjective agreement that
"yes, this is how it is" allows us to *confirm* the "objective" world
that *must* exist in order to obtain *agreeing* results *irrespective*
of the observer.

(for that is what "objectivity" is about: removing the observer. That
is why I think Spirituality should be about *reincluding* the
observer... science is "empty" becuase it has taken *us* -- our wants,
needs, feelings -- out of the equations of the world. It's time to put
them back in, and I think religion and Spirituality are the way to do

> Could it be that "subjective" and "Objective" interpenetrate with one
> another by some unobservable mechanism not known or understood at this
> time? Are all phenomena that are not classified or provable by
> scientific methodology non-existant because of lack of proof or
> evidence?

Certainly not! Science cannot say *anything* about phenomena which is
has not yet addressed... fortunatly, such phenomena are rare.

> These are questions that have need for an answer
> and given a hypothesis to work out the experiemental proofs
> of positive or negative. Experimentation is the only way
> we can observe and classify unknowns until they become the known
> in science.

Right on the money!

(not implying in any way that success with money means "good", of
course! <VBG>)