tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post444336749775648342..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Hodge's HedgingsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15191098196115105722013-08-29T15:30:52.531-04:002013-08-29T15:30:52.531-04:00Hello Robert et al.,
Thanks for your contribution...Hello Robert et al.,<br /><br />Thanks for your contribution!<br /><br />I have posted a reply to a portion of Hodge's latest blog entry. You can find my new post here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/08/subjectivism-in-hodges-view-of-reality.html" rel="nofollow">http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/08/subjectivism-in-hodges-view-of-reality.html</a><br /><br />Just reading through Hodge's blog entry, I can tell that it's a treasure trove of religiously induced hysteria. If you want to observe a mind systematically detaching itself from reality, Hodge provides himself as a specimen for many future lessons.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12901000829163908662013-08-29T10:07:11.924-04:002013-08-29T10:07:11.924-04:00I posted my comment and question to Hodge at his b...I posted my comment and question to Hodge at his blog.<br /><br />http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2013/08/objectivism-again.html?showComment=1377785062999#c3757509811267815357Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20011811641312291932013-08-29T09:45:58.485-04:002013-08-29T09:45:58.485-04:00I'm going to post this question to Hodge.
Reg...I'm going to post this question to Hodge.<br /><br />Regarding the notion of non physical objects, regardless of Objectivism's stance, it seems to me a non-cognitive floating abstraction and stolen concept. What would be the primary attribute of "non-physical"? Lacking such the notion would not have justifiable secondary or relational attributes and so the term "non-physical object" would have no specific referents and would consequently be meaningless.<br /><br />Ideas and indeed all cognitive content are instantiated brain states and so are physical. Does Hodge mean to imply there can be objects without temporal spacial existence? If so, is he referring to Branes within String Theory's M-Space or regions of True Vacuum within Chaotic Eternal Inflation's False Vacuum? Since there is still space of sorts within each hypothesis and time is what is measured on a clock to gauge passage of action due to events and in both hypothesizes there occur events, then both False Vacuum and M-Space are temporal and spatial even if they lack space-time as in our cosmic domain or universe. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50305075320632617502013-08-29T06:03:52.379-04:002013-08-29T06:03:52.379-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn&#...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't seen it. I have saved a copy and will read through it as time allows. I'm several paragraphs in already and already I've seen numerous howlers.<br /><br />At one point, Hodge writes (he is attributing this view to me):<br /><br /><b>"The idea that physical objects make up the sum total of reality is a metaphysic that cannot be confirmed through sensory perception. Yet, he still affirms it in his definition of reality."</b><br /><br />Seriously, where have I done this? I have never asserted "the idea that physical objects make up the sum total of reality," and yet he say I affirm this as my "definition of reality." He does this right after a paragraph in which he accuses me of setting up a straw man. He does not quote any statement of mine to support his characterization of my "metaphysic."<br /><br />The guy seems to have his head so far up his own faith-assumptions that he's passing out from his own fumes.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-13499792010854109602013-08-29T05:49:01.809-04:002013-08-29T05:49:01.809-04:00How the hell does he expect to form beliefs withou...How the hell does he expect to form beliefs without first perceiving things? Oh, wait, that's right, God magically inserts those beliefs directly into your brain by ... well ... erm ... "mysterious ways".<br /><br />It's just a mind bogglingly absurd claim.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46123688182331262972013-08-29T00:28:57.556-04:002013-08-29T00:28:57.556-04:00Hi Dawson,
So I moseyed on over to B.C. Hodge'...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />So I moseyed on over to B.C. Hodge's site, to see if he'd posted anything in response to your blog entry. Here's what I found:<br /><br />Objectivism Again <br />Wednesday, August 28, 2013<br /><br />http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2013/08/objectivism-again.html<br /><br />I've yet to read the entire response. However, what Hodge writes at the end (pasted below) demonstrates the absurdities one is forced to defend when accepting a reversal at the most fundamental level: the primacy of consciousness.<br /><br />Hodge quoting Dawson: "This just confirms my point above, that it’s all ignorance-borne. Perception is more fundamental than belief. But Hodge has yet to understand this."<br /><br />Hodge then responds: "This just confirms my point above, that it's all ignorance-borne. Perception is not more fundamental than belief when forming concepts, as the reasoned formation needs those beliefs to form it in the first place. But Bethrick has yet to understand this." <br /><br />Wow. This is just crazy talk. <br /><br />Am I reading him right? That he thinks beliefs are more fundamental than perception? If so, then among other failings, he has no grasp of the hierarchical nature of knowledge. <br /><br />A biblical mentality in action. <br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-79245476245956728062013-08-28T10:01:22.593-04:002013-08-28T10:01:22.593-04:00The main definition of essence is, “The intrinsic ...The main definition of essence is, “The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.“ - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence<br /><br />The main definition of intrinsic is, “1a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing“ -http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic<br /><br />The main definition of indispensable is, “Not to be dispensed with; essential.“ -http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indispensable<br /><br />The main definition of essential is, “Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.“ -<br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essential<br /><br />The secondary definition of constitution is, “The composition or structure of something; makeup.” -<br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/constitution<br /><br />The xantian god is said to have an essence that is its knowledge. Nal quoted a source thusly: “We can get rid of essences altogether, and instead hold that the sorts of modal properties we're interested in belong to our linguistic descriptions, not to the objective individual. I really like that idea.“<br /><br />The source Nal cited hit upon the idea underpinning the Argument from Non-Cognitivism also used by Anton Thorn to show the word “God” is meaningless. The meaning of essence as seen in the above definition chain presupposes existence and nature, so the term essence is that which is stolen by theists to form a bogus concept of an immaterial being. This can be used as a justification for the strong atheist position. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10099855773058233862013-08-27T17:45:44.042-04:002013-08-27T17:45:44.042-04:00While researching the Metaphysics/Epistemology dis...While researching the Metaphysics/Epistemology distinction, I came across this: <a href="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/12/essential-meanings.html" rel="nofollow">Essential Meanings</a>:<br /><br /><i>We can get rid of essences altogether, and instead hold that the sorts of modal properties we're interested in belong to our linguistic descriptions, not to the objective individual. I really like that idea.</i> <br /><br />Me, too. <br /><br />Linguistic descriptions belong in the Epistemology camp. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47394675125252182282013-08-27T13:59:32.786-04:002013-08-27T13:59:32.786-04:00Hodge wrote: “That the senses give us an accurate ...Hodge wrote: “That the senses give us an accurate perception of reality can only be confirmed by belief in a reality we cannot perceive with the senses.” and Dawson noted regarding it that "On a plain reading of this, there is (according to Hodge) on the one hand a reality which we can perceive and, on the other, “a reality we cannot perceive with the senses.” <br /><br />It seems Hodges holds to a species of Cartesian Substance Dualism. How does he deal with the many well known problems with that belief? For instance, How can the non-detectable by any physical means substance(the spirit realm?) interact with physical material substances? How can one causally affect the other? Where do such interactions between the spirit realm and physical reality occur? The list goes on especially since many Christians like Hodge believe that their "souls" and "minds" are composed of such spirit substance. Then a typical question might be how a mind/soul with free will can control a physical body subject to deterministic forces.<br /><br /> http://schriftman.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/the-problems-of-cartesian-dualism/<br /><br />Not to worry, magical thinking will rescue Hodge from the evils of reasoning and answer the call of theological need. ;)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-13962838548472634632013-08-26T14:15:25.110-04:002013-08-26T14:15:25.110-04:00Dawson noted: “If I perceive a rose and I perceive...Dawson noted: “If I perceive a rose and I perceive it as red (apart from what I judge it to be) ”<br /><br />This is interesting as it points out a distinction between minds and some aspect of how existence self-relates. Organisms with minds are capable of participation in subject-object relationships and so can judge as well as perceive. Blind forces of nature can’t do that. Now the Christian god is said to be omnipresent meaning located at all spatial points simultaneously doing magic to maintain existence existing. This would mean that it would be unable to distinguish objects apart from itself as all would be it. If Hodges god were omnipresent, it couldn’t think, judge, discern, have propositional knowledge as these cognitive actions all require ability to distinguish objects from the subject. It would be merely an aspect of nature rather like a fundamental force and could not be identified as a mind. Ha LOL. Xanity (and theism) reveals itself to be more absurd every time I think about it. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5894110253094029462013-08-26T09:55:51.810-04:002013-08-26T09:55:51.810-04:00Best and Good Too.Best and Good Too.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31977978717450329712013-08-26T09:55:27.687-04:002013-08-26T09:55:27.687-04:00Hello friends,
Hodge wrote: “It helps with a numb...Hello friends,<br /><br />Hodge wrote: “It helps with a number of a priori beliefs needed to establish that my assessment of it reality is to some degree accurate.”<br /><br />Witch doctors enthralled with their superstitions and rejecting the evidence of the senses as valid evade realization of the high cost of their magical thinking by ignoring that models of "belief" whether representational, functional, or behavioral, all presuppose contingency to material information as an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles that can only be perceived by means of the senses or extensions of the senses via instrumentation. Magical thinking, of course, is directly attributable to active imagination. That's why it's a fallacy. I'm glad this isn't my problem. Many thanks to Dawson for yet another good blog. :) Chreers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60653668417954395602013-08-25T20:15:57.426-04:002013-08-25T20:15:57.426-04:00It seems to me that Aquinas' essence (whatness...It seems to me that Aquinas' essence (whatness) is a product of identification and his existence (thatness) is identity. That is, ascertaining essence is a conceptual activity. Aquinas then tries to project his identification onto the existent as some kind of attribute of its nature. <br /><br />Some Objectivist forums claim essence and existence are the same thing, but I've found nothing from Rand. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53024762371600626322013-08-25T18:19:13.318-04:002013-08-25T18:19:13.318-04:00Nice post. I've had many long debates with Hod...Nice post. I've had many long debates with Hodge in the past on his blog. Presuppositonalists are so very annoying. Hodge's starting point, is literally faith in the infallibility of the Bible, and then he "reasons" from there. He will readily admit that he takes it on faith, but he'll try to accuse you of doing the same thing with naturalism. Naturalism is a conclusion derived from the senses not a presupposition. <br /><br />He also believes that demons haunt the world and cause suffering. When I confronted him with the evidence that there are natural explanations for diseases and disasters, he tried to rationalize this by saying that demons use the natural laws of physics as their medium. But then their existence and nonexistence is indistinguishable. So belief in them offers no explanatory power, it's utterly redundant. The whole metaphysic in the supernatural, that Hodge clings to, on the power of faith, is utterly redundant. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-57981236294279797582013-08-25T00:29:31.993-04:002013-08-25T00:29:31.993-04:00Hi Dawson,
On the previous thread, I wrote:
&qu...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />On the previous thread, I wrote: <br /><br />"The theist reveals a profound insecurity in positing faith as necessary for the acquisition of knowledge. It's as if the theist senses -- by whatever glowing embers of reason that still remain among all that have been extinguished -- how untenable their position actually is. So to shore things up, they do so with the desperate grasp of: 'Hey, wait! Faith ***must*** be necessary for knowledge. If it's not, the mystical investment I've made has all been for naught and it will come crashing down! And I don't ever ***want that*** to happen!'" <br /><br />On the blog entry for this thread you wrote: "Essentially, he wants the form of consciousness which he imagines to be real, so his “argument” that everyone must begin with a species of subjectivism based upon faith is driven by theological need, not by facts that he has objectively gathered and integrated into a non-contradictory whole."<br /><br />What you've written regarding "theological need" is precisely what I was attempting to express.<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /> Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48903550506766733142013-08-24T23:33:52.712-04:002013-08-24T23:33:52.712-04:00Hodge writes: “So if I was a philosophic naturalis...Hodge writes: “So if I was a philosophic naturalist, I have to limit reality [to] what I, and the assumed other minds around me that are in the same boat as mine, can personally perceive.”<br /><br />Apparently Hodge’s concern is that, if he didn’t take the faith route, reality would be limited in such a way that his theological confessions did not apply. And he wants to avoid this. But his entire approach is backwards. He approaches the matter as one who must accept an unspecified number of “presuppositions” about reality prior to investigating reality and allowing those “presuppositions” (“belief in a reality we cannot perceive with the senses,” “faith in a metaphysic,” “a report that claims to be from One who [is] transcendent,” etc.) to govern what is and what is not accepted as truth about reality.<br /><br />Also, Hodge seems to resent the prospect of being “in the same boat” with others, even though he, like everyone else reading this, is a human being with a human consciousness and thus neither omniscient nor infallible, able to perceive and form concepts, facing a fundamental alternative between life and death, thus needing to identify what he perceives in order to make living possible, and thus in need of an objective method by which he can reliably identify what he perceives. But throughout all his efforts to refute objectivism (whether big or small ‘o’), he’s continually made statements to the effect that reason is never going to be on his side unless he makes some radical changes in his thinking.<br /><br />We all start with what we perceive. It’s what we do with what we perceive that is the game-changer. If one wants to evade what he perceives in preference for something one merely imagines, religion is the more philosophically developed result. If one does not seek to evade what he perceives, then he needs an objective method by which to identify what he perceives. But seeking to refute objectivism, Hodge declares war on objectivity. This is only fitting given his devotion to his imaginary god.<br /><br />Hodge writes: “But whether I have landed on a true view of the essential nature of reality cannot be perceived.”<br /><br />Hodge clearly wants to narrow the options between directly perceiving something and having “faith in a metaphysic.” Like so many other mystics, he does not understand the relationship between the conceptual and the perceptual. He probably assumes there is no relationship, and in the case of much of what he considers “knowledge,” there is no relationship. But it would not follow from this that the conceptual level of cognition has no relationship to perceptual awareness. It is more ignorance-borne speculation on the part of the theist which closes the door to reason and objective knowledge.<br /><br />Hodge writes: “I am merely guessing that it is so, and that guess is in the realm of belief, not experience. My experience is then interpreted in light of that belief to conclude other things about reality. But the belief comes first, and it is subjective. Hence, objectivism is false.”<br /><br />This just confirms my point above, that it’s all ignorance-borne. Perception is more fundamental than belief. But Hodge has yet to understand this.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50766074683596182042013-08-24T23:33:43.544-04:002013-08-24T23:33:43.544-04:00Hodge writes: “Hence, I either must believe a repo...Hodge writes: “Hence, I either must believe a report that claims to be from One who [is] transcendent and knows the essential nature of the object, or I must guess and believe, via pure speculation, that such is the essential nature of the studied object.”<br /><br />Notice that for Hodge, reason is not even a contender here. Either he must simply accept, on faith, reports that are claim to have come from a supernatural consciousness which he can only imagine, or he must “guess and believe, via pure speculation.” He does not even consider reason. He may think that reason just is guessing and believing via pure speculation. It’s not. But this is probably what has been taught to him and he never questioned. <br /><br />Hodge writes: “Neither the object, nor my method for studying its physical nature, can tell me whether I have landed on the right metaphysical belief.”<br /><br />So clearly he’s not employing reason. He tells us this right here. Whatever “method” he is using for “studying,” it’s not reason. Also, by characterizing the end goal as “landing on the right metaphysical belief” suggests that it’s all a very approximate affair of groping and, by luck, finding what he calls “the right metaphysical belief.” How he determines that whatever belief he’s accepted is “the right metaphysical belief,” he does not explain. <br /><br />Hodge writes: “Yet, the belief itself is necessary in concluding any view of reality that attempts to include its essential nature (which are all views of reality).”<br /><br />This is Hodge’s theology speaking. However his faith can be characterized as indispensable, it’s a live option, he will likely take it, even if it explains nothing, even if it systemically abandons reason altogether.<br /><br />It would be interesting, though, if Hodge could explain what he means by “essential nature” and why he continually qualifies “nature” as “essential nature.” Aquinas made the harrowing mistake of treating essence as a metaphysical concept, as though a thing’s existence and its nature were two distinct things. Objectivism rejects this: “Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification” (Ayn Rand). By contrast, Objectivism rightly treats ‘essence’ as an epistemological concept, thus avoiding the hazard of blurring the epistemological with the metaphysical, the method of knowing and the object so known.<br /><br />Hodge writes: “Hence, one must assume a metaphysic in order to conclude a metaphysic. The data in between says nothing about it.”<br /><br />And round and round we go, like a dog chasing its own tail.<br /> <br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-35005537592812933272013-08-24T23:33:26.040-04:002013-08-24T23:33:26.040-04:00Hodge explains: “Metaphysics discusses the essenti...Hodge explains: “Metaphysics discusses the essential nature of the universe, not merely its physical characteristics.”<br /><br />So where’s the confusion? The universe exists. The solar system exists. The solar system moves. Where’s the confusion? What is “the essential nature of the universe” if it’s not the same as all the characteristics that make it up? If the characteristics of the universe are for some reason supposed to be different in nature from “the essential nature of the universe,” how would one go about determining this? Hodge nowhere explains any of this. But it’s clearly a premise that helps drive the rest of what he wants to say.<br /><br />Hodge continues: “Hence, questions concerning the physical nature of an object of study is [sic] what I use empirical observation and experiential reason to study.”<br /><br />So it seems we’re back to the two different realities again. Reason is suited to one, but the other needs some unexplained “faith in a metaphysic” to know. What justifies the positing of some other reality to begin with? We already saw that Hodge’s own pre-emptive justification for this leads to an infinite regress. Moreover, it is based in part on a confusion between perception and identification, and in part on an ignorance of the nature of concepts, and motivated by theological need, not by facts.<br /><br />Hodge writes: “Questions that have to do with the essential nature of an object of study, e.g., whether it is purely a physical object or phenomenon, or whether there is a spiritual element to it, cannot be answered by empiricism and experiential reasoning.”<br /><br />Just so it’s clear, is Hodge saying that such questions cannot be answered by using reason? This is a yes-no question for Hodge to address directly.<br /><br />Also, if one supposes that “there is a spiritual element” to something, how does he ensure that he has not mistaken what he may merely be imagining for something real? We do not automatically have knowledge; we must discover and validate it, and we can make mistakes. This is why we need an objective method – this is why we need <i>reason</i>. But Hodge and other mystics treat their mystical claims as though they were immune from error, as though they were infallible in their mystical insights, when in fact it is among their mystical claims that mystics have their greatest clashes and disputes. Once one is on the turf of faith, he’s renounced reason as his method. He has no objective method to guard against error and ensure the truth of his verdicts. This is precisely why faith and reason will never be compatible.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62163388952114513572013-08-24T23:33:07.976-04:002013-08-24T23:33:07.976-04:00Over in the comments section of Hodge’s blog, Hodg...Over in the comments section of <a href="" rel="nofollow">Hodge’s blog</a>, Hodge addressed a question that NAL had asked in response to something Hodge wrote.<br /><br />Hodge wrote: “One must have faith in a metaphysic in order to attempt to describe the whole of reality.” <br /><br />NAL asked: “How has this faith in a metaphysic helped you describe the motion of the Solar System?”<br /><br />Hodge replied: “It allows me to know that the universe and its characteristics are not illusions.”<br /><br />How exactly does it do this? Why would anyone think that the universe and its characteristics are illusions in the first place? Where did Hodge get the concept ‘illusion’? By what means does he have awareness of the universe and its characteristics if not by perception?<br /><br />Meanwhile, we have the primacy of existence. This principle explicitly distinguishes between the subject of consciousness and its objects and affirms that the objects of awareness exist and are what they are independent of the activity by which the subject is aware of them. Without this principle, there is no such thing as a distinction between illusion and reality. But by claiming to have refuted objectivism, he has essentially affirmed that the objects of awareness do not exist independently of conscious activity.<br /><br />Hodge wrote: “It helps with a number of a priori beliefs needed to establish that my assessment of it reality is to some degree accurate.”<br /><br />So Hodge has accepted some beliefs that are not acquired and validated on the basis of reason (otherwise they would not be “a priori” beliefs), and his “faith in a metaphysic” “helps with” some of these beliefs in some unspecified manner. It all seems so approximate.<br /><br />Hodge continues: “However, the question confuses categories of inquiry.”<br /><br />Really? How so?<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22416055719634926502013-08-24T23:26:21.366-04:002013-08-24T23:26:21.366-04:00B.C. Hodge has elaborted:
It [his metaphysic] al...B.C. Hodge has elaborted: <br /><br /><b>It [his metaphysic] allows me to know that the universe and its characteristics are not illusions.</b> <br /><br />"Existence exists" does this coherently. <br /><br /><b>Metaphysics discusses the essential nature of the universe, not merely its physical characteristics. Hence, questions concerning the physical nature of an object of study is what I use empirical observation and experiential reason to study. Questions that have to do with the essential nature of an object of study, e.g., whether it is purely a physical object or phenomenon, or whether there is a spiritual element to it, cannot be answered by empiricism and experiential reasoning.</b> <br /><br />So, only the "spiritual" aspect of reality can be accessed via his metaphysic. He imagines an aspect of reality that only his metaphysic can discern. I wonder what his metaphysic tells him about the spiritual nature of a rock. <br /><br />Yes, I noticed the goalpost moving. <br /><br />Love the part about using our "unreliable" perception to learn about the metaphysic that tells us perception is unreliable. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.com