Re: virus: The other

William Roh (
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:40:43 -0800

Brett said:
> 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?

Why should i make this expansion if no two people can agree on anything
outside of empirical evidence? It's not mechanical tools per say, it's
verifiable tools that matter. mathematics is a good example of a non
mechanical tool. Unless you can demonstrate a tool with a very high
accuracy rate that is not based upon empirical and objective data, i see
no reason to go that direction. As I have stated repeatedly, without
evidence, there is no reason to take anything seriously, includeing the
evidence choosing method itself. Speculation is fine, and when i
speculate, i say "It seems to me that". As long as a concept contains
qualifiers that acknowledge it as speculation, guess, hypothesis, or
faith, the statement is fine. I am not willing build upon concepts that
have a high possibility of fuzzyness around them, unless it is within
the framwork of a "guess".