Re: Magic 104 the empathic channel

[lazlo%triton.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)]

jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) writes:

> Notice, people, how strange and improbable these arguments sound, how
> tempting it is to just *deny* them... but if you look without prejudice,
> they're *perfectly plausible* both from the point of view of our daily,
> direct, experiencing, and also, equally, plausible in terms of what
> 'Known Science' should allow.

No they're not.  They are completely *im*plausible.  They are an
abstraction, based upon your own individual reaction to music, that
you've blown up into an utterly-unsupportable-outside-of-your-own-personal-
experience series of assumptions and suppositions which you're attempting
to map onto the rest of the world.

> The kneejerk 'scientism' that pretends they're proven impossible is
> *pure* egotism.

As opposed to the egotism that presumes that your personal experiences and
perceptions are necessarily universal and that we're just disparaging you
because we're bullheaded "scientismists" who refuse to see Pure Cosmic
Truth As You Understand It?  Sheesh.

> Why do Americans commonly believe that Known Science excludes any sort
> of subtle perception?

Because Known Science hasn't been able to reliably reproduce any evidence
of so-called "subtle perception" that isn't sufficiently explained by
trickery or coincidence.  And there are plenty of people looking.  (What
you think this has to do with Americans, per se, escapes me.  In my
experience Americans are no more or less likely to fall for this sort of
silliness than anyone else.)

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)