You gotta differentiate between subject and object universes. Bills hard-core data structures are rigorously accurate for statements about the object universe--things commonly perceived, or perceived in common. The things to which numbers and empoirical processes apply.

But Kat, and a number of others herein, are talking about a wealth of adventure and experience in the universe of the knower. This is a field about which empirical science has yet to make a dent in explaining or even scoping out. The space of possible knowing is as big as all imagination, which is large indeed; and the degrees and kinds of experience available are as yet uncounted. Furthermore a lot of those experiences map remarkably well across the bridge into the commons and the material playing field. They do not behave as uniformly as material particles do, and it has not yet been really seriously tried to figure out what the universal constants in the field of knowing are. I am sure,for example that degrees and qualities of communication and "affinity" states would probably number among them.

In my view it is far braver and more honest to admit such experiences if they occur and simply allow there are large territories which are terra incognita, than to insist such territories could not be there because they don't look like what you are used to measuring and weighing.


A