Continuing my pondering of "What trumps what?," given threads in recent history I think the koan of whether one's subjective experience vs. experience of objective reality "wins" or *should* "win" is in order. But that's just me, sitting in a sunny cafe in February knowing absolute diddleysquat but rapping about it anyway. Rapeat emptor.
Some have held -- rather emphatically, in fact -- that their subjective "knowing" or point of view or perception on a given situation "wins," no matter what. Suffice it to say I do not swing that way. I hope that I *honor* my subjective experience by never being afraid to express it, but I also hope that I don't try to "extrapolate" from that subjective experience in such a way as to declare it true, much less Truth. But many do. What's up with that, eh? I'm thinking that we may be back to the Holy Dogma again. The Holy Dogma stateth -- and in no uncertain terms -- that if you find yourself having "good experiences," those good experiences are not only true in a someday- to-be-proved-by-science way, they define Truth not only for yourself, but for others. I think you're getting the picture that I am not exactly a big fan of the Holy Dogma. I hold *some* of it to be useful, *not a whole heckuva lot of it* to be true, and absolutely *none* of it to be Truth. "Gimme that old-time religion (subjectivity)?" No way. "Gimme that old-time science/consensus reality (object- ivity ONLY)? No way. "Gimme the fun of trying to juggle my subjective experience with objective consensus reality?" Way.
