Well, Mrrzy, you are being firm with us, which is always good.

But you are rejecting the notion of non-objective phenomenology out of hand, and this may be a mistake.

I think there are three major sets of phenomena we are wrestling with here. The common framework we all share, measurable and evidentiary, is apparently the dominant one in our lives, for obvious reasons.

But sociologists are forever chasing after phenomena in a second sphere--the zone of non-substantial agreements, memes and notions, trends and shared opinions, all of which cannot be found in the measured spacetime of the material world, but they apparently have a lot of weight in human affairs. There is no evidence for a popular conviction, after all, except that many voices assert it.

In the deep and private universe of the individual being you may find a third complete domain, in which intentions, created views, postulated realities, spiritual insights, and many other things are in play without a shred of evidence for their existence showing up in the common space except by voluntary description.

How to be rational about these three areas may differ dramatically. In the physical universe, it is a common thing to increase the amount of force one uses to move a mass at rest until it succumbs. If you try this approach in the universe of shared opinions and such, you will find yourself failing miserably.

All I am saying is don't mix them up, or decide prematurely that "everything" is cntained in one or the other of these three.

A