Re: virus: The other

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:17:23 -0500

At 08:37 PM 11/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>everything (other than direct experience) is
>I would of course say the exact opposite.

B: And what would be "the exact opposite"?: Nothing is speculation but
experience? Care to translate?

>'Direct experience' is of course, the crux. I see no need to have an
>'experiencer'. Brett (and many more) hinge it all on the fact we are here
>experiencing. And what is 'direct experience'?
>Smacks of the mystic. (Wade)


I was hesitant to imply that direct experience was valid, either. I have
great distaste for the mystic. I also think my statement sounds mystical.
I'm sure I didn't mean that experience was an emotional attachment to
reality (which IS mystical). Likewise, I didn't mean that there is no way
to communicate one person's experience short of another also using direct
experience (also mystical). Further, I do not hold experience as a primary
(or even a very good) form of inter-relating. I also do not think that the
individual is somehow blind to the experience...or that it is somehow
transcended by the individual and embodied in the group (or the subjective,
or the objective...). *Direct* was the best way I could come up with to
hint at these boundaries to "experience"...though I do think everything is
an experience of sorts (sufficiently vague?).

My intent was to raise the question above: "And what is 'direct
experience'?" I don't think this is the list to answer that question (it
would be a philosophical question...according to hegel, according to plato,
etc.). On the same hand, I wanted Sodom to expand his level of acceptance
to include other kinds of experience than experiences which rely on
mechanical devices (and Wade too). What type of experience is the
"Scientific" experience...I still wonder?



Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy