I think both sides of this discussion have been a bit pointy, Ted. The rationalists, or whatedver you call them, have the adevantage of empiricism on their side, and along with that they have a trained attitude of perpetual doubt. Whatever it is that you and Slag have experienced (assuming it is even the same thing, which it may well not be) has the advantage of personal conviction and clarity, a kind of certainty that often is ill-fitted for empirical dialogue and debate.

My believe then, is that it would have been wiser not to start this second branch just to rebut the "Still No..." thread, no matter how compelling the urge. Because it is compelling in a totally different language, not suited to rebut the hard-nosed empricists. It really is a different sand-box, so to speak, or a radically different system of phenomenology.


A