ARTelevision

No, roachboy, there is nothing objective about my experience.

I don't explain things beyond my ability to do so. I think the current language that is in common usage is sufficient to address current experience. I attempt to use it to negate or short-circuit itself as much as possible - to create unanswerable questions, to report as best I can on the mysterious thing I'm calling my experience. It is mysterious to me because I can not explain it. Ultimately, I do prefer that situation.

So I type what I think can be handled with common language and am content to leave things as they are - unresolved and even unresolvable. By raising questions I think I am doing something significant in itself.

As for the manner of proceeding conceptually through a process of negation - I am aware of the cognitive notion that by negating a frame one calls the frame up for cognition (thereby short-circuiting the process of negation - at least conceptually), however - , there is enough of a historical and philosophical history of employing it, including Vedic and Buddhist methodogogies and other instances of the via negativa that I think this procedure is comprehensible enough to suggest it. The fact that it doesn't seem many are familiar with proceeding through concepts by a process of negation doesn't deter me from putting it out there as an example of how what I propose differs from the "scientific method"...

In other words, it is neither "this" nor "that"...

__________________
create evolution