List,
While it is true that one cannot *varify* reality without perception, one
can be an example of this reality without perceiving themself (one's
thoughts are objective). If one starts with the example that they
exist--even if they cannot varify this assumption--then being an aspect of
reality in the process of manifesting (without self awareness) is proof
enough that "there is some underlying substrate of perception": That is, I
*do* something, therefore I am.
Brett
At 08:52 AM 9/24/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:12:07 -0600
>>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
<snip>
>You are making the assumption that there is some underlying substrate of
>perception
>called "reality". It is, however, impossible to independently verify the
>existence of
>this supposed material outside of perception. "Reality" is derived from
>perception,
>not the reverse. If you like, the two are inextricably intertwined. While
>I am willing
>to call such a viewpoint "subjective" I'm not certian why you insist on
>equating
>"subjective" and "inconsistent". In fact, I'm not sure what you find so
>distasteful
>about "subjective".
>
>What is wrong with subjectivity, anyway?
>
>Reed
ps...what is wrong with subjectivity? It doesn't *do* anything but sit
there and look at itself.
BR
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Why did the Lord give us so much quickness of movement
unless it was to avoid responsibility with?