Rex, I think your onto something here.... let me add a little
"1. Explanation is subordinate to description.
2. Description is subordinate to observation.
3. Observation is subordinate to experience.
4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience."
you distinguish between observation and experience? nonsense.
"However, our explanation of experience can only be justified by
to experience - plus reason."
Before jumping to explanation of experience you might want to hang out
at the problem of description of experience.... which is an element of
experience itself, or in so far as it is possible, a tautology. Does
any such description of experience exist?
you assume there is in existence any such explanation of experience or
show me one explanation of experience. even if it existed it would be
a mere feature of experience.
"But what is reason? Where does it come from? What explains it?
do experience and reason have to say about reason? Another circle"
I like this. It reminds me of a prediction a friend made... he says
those on the cutting edge of the modern mind are starting to
experience the break down or dysfunction and limits of the analytical
or rational mind.... a kind of crisis of rationalism which will
produce profound effects, especially once we get past the faith of
"if our experiences correspond to something external to themselves"
I don't see why you distinguish between the world and our
observations.... I could see how you could distinguish between our
subjective configurations of observing instruments and the non-
objective relativities of corresponding appearances upon whatever
level of abstraction or non-objectivity.
Do you believe in a objective world or totality? Do you believe in an
objective experience of experience-description? Do you believe in a
objective reality, universal and totalizing, that can represent itself
I don't. I think objectivity is an illusion. In so far as it is
possible it only accounts for one limited configuration or set.
the objective depends on the condition or configuration/status of the
indeterminate subject which is apart of and productive of the
framework of appearances/observation yet aloof from it.
"But what reason do we have to believe that our experiences do so
correspond to an external world"
I firmly believe that the conventional notion of the process through
which vision comes to be is erroneous and absurd and self-
"Our experience of dreams and hallucinations and delusions are enough
to plant the seeds of doubt about the reliability of both experience
in other words, unless you assert and delineate a reductionist/
physicalist ground with all its variables and necessary structures....
for experiences... in a kind of matrix way..... then the notion of
objective existence or objective reality underlying the varieties of
experience.... the notion of the one, of the absolute objective
operation unifying and underlying all multiplicity and
subjectivity.... is untenable.
"And there’s just the general question of what “reason” means in a
deterministic world, or a probabilistic world, or a purely contingent
Or how about a world which is a vague approximation of all three and
What is determined reason, rational, reasonable, probable, possible
etc. this is all a relativistic determination.
Furthermore.... in your supposed "metaphysical leap of faith".... that
of course would also be a feature of experience and not a reflection
of the supposed transcendent grounds of experience...... there can be
no metaphysical transcendent grounds of experience....... the very
notion is simply a feature of experience and even if it was true it
would be absolutely unexperiencable and unknowable and therefore
practically non-existent with no identity.
There is no non-ideational metaphysics outside of experience... duh.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at