Ah, I think I understand you better now than I had before Steve.
Thanks. When you said previously (CAPS mine):
"The table and chairs person forgets this sometimes and jumps on the
bandwagon of a REAL OBJECTIVE WORLD OUT THERE that science is
uncovering for us."
Since the sentence, in context, was an observation negatively
presented, I took it to be equivalent to the statement: "there is not
a real objective world out there, and these poor table and chairs
people jump on a bandwagon to the opposite". Having been straightened
out on your position, I now suppose, rather, I should have focused in
on the portion of your sentence that said: "...that science is
uncovering for us", which would be the operative part where you're
saying the T&C folks are in error.
Anyways, I would agree that there are many phenomena, especially
relating to our first person experience which can only be understood
as such. This is one reason why I engage in meditation (though not as
regularly as I should) and one reason why I'm all for the Dalai Lama's
call for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists to work
on understanding consciousness from both the inside and outside, so to
I would agree with you that to deny our own subjective experience as
part of the reality we live in, would be almost insanity. I would also
agree with you that we cannot take what is empirically proven, and
then put a lid on that box, seal it up, and dogmatically proclaim it a
complete collection of all that is reality. This would be nonsense,
and actually very unscientific of us.
At the same time, I am leery of the common tendency to concoct all
sorts of claims about reality as experienced subjectively and then
think that, simply because we shouldn't do what I described in the
above paragraph, these claims are as reasonable as anything else.
Sometimes people confuse shared cultural interpretation of their
experience, with shared experience.