Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Sam Harris: on the dangers of the atheist label & the value of meditation
fivebells
Veteran
This is awesome. Skip to 24 minutes in.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KG5s_-Khvg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KG5s_-Khvg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KG5s_-Khvg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KG5s_-Khvg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
0
Comments
Imagine in the science of astronomy, if you couldn't even observe whether there was a phenomenon worth <i>looking</i> at unless you built your own telescope: This would be an immense barrier to establishing astronomy as a science. It wouldn't make the sky any less worthy of our investigation, but it would be an immense impediment. To judge the claims of contemplatives, we <i>have</i> to build our own telescope. In judging their metaphysical claims and their philosophical claims we can use thought itself: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy on their merits. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible, and if possible, desirable, we <i>have</i> to able to use our own attention in the requisite ways, if only for a few moments.
Now one problem with atheism, it seems to me, as a category of thought, is that it's almost synonymous with not being interested in such phenomena, almost synonymous with not being interested in what the Buddha (or Jesus) may have experienced in his life. It seems to me that many atheists, though perhaps not all, reject such experiences out of hand as being undesirable or impossible. Another common mistake is to imagine that whatever experience these contemplatives have had, they're identical to experiences we're all familiar with -- they're identical to scientific awe or aesthetic appreciation or artistic inspiration. Let me just say as someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, when someone goes into solitude for months or years at a time, and trains himself in meditation for fifteen to eighteen hours a day, doing nothing but observe the contents of his own consciousness and try not to be lost in thought: not reading, not writing, not talking, just making an effort moment to moment to pay undivided attention to the arising of thought and the arising of sensory experience, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not familiar with, unless they've made the identical introspective efforts. And these experiences have something to say about the plasticity of human experience itself and the possibilities of human happiness. So apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I want to say that our neglect of these phenomena as atheists puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them. And these experiences are often the most important and transformative in their lives. And if we by definition ignore them because of their entanglement with religion, we appear less wise than even our crazy religious opponents.
Now, I don't know if, as J. B. S. Haldane said, the universe is not only stranger than we suppose but stranger than we can suppose, but I'm pretty sure that it is stranger than we as atheists, tend to represent while advocating atheism. I mean, as atheists we tend to give people the sense, and even give ourselves the sense, that we are well on the way to purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know mystery is going to be with us for quite some time. In fact there are good reasons to believe that mystery may be inerradicable from our circumstance. Because however much we understand the universe, it seems there might well always be brute facts which we can't explain, but which we must use to explain everything else. Now, this is not a problem for human life. It is not a barrier to human happiness. But we are faced with the task of convincing a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that you don't have to delude yourself and frighten yourself with iron-age fairy tales. This is a monumental task. I don't think there's any intellectual struggle more worthy of our efforts. But it seems to me that we should not, in this effort, fight in well-ordered ranks like the red coats of atheism.
It's worth thinking about what victory will look like. Again, the example of racism seems instructive to me. What will it look like when we finally conquer the evil of racism, should that happy day ever dawn? It's certainly not going to be a world in which a majority of people profess themselves to be nonracist. It will very likely be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning. I think if we win this war of ideas with religion, we will find ourselves in world in which the concept of atheism is nonintelligible. It'll be a concept like non-astrology. Now I think this is absolutely worth fighting for. I think in fact this may be the only future compatible with our survival as a species, and this'll be a world where people simply cease to praise one another for believing things, or pretending to believe things, for which they have no evidence. But <b>the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be unremittingly honest, and to advocate intellectual honesty. It seems to me that intellectual honesty will always be more durable and deeper and more easily spread, than atheism.</b> Thank you very much.</blockquote>
The study of religion has come a long way since Weber and James. There's a sizable scientific and scholarly literature on the subject. Researchers have some interesting things to say about religion. Unfortunately, what they have to say isn't sensational, and is difficult to explain in one or two paragraphs. People who are good at getting media attention are either uninterested or unaware. People who actually know what they're talking about are usually not very good at attracting attention.
a replacement myth would just be substituting one illusion with another.
I love most of what Sam Harris says. I have a feeling that's because his views are essentially Buddhist. His objection to the word "atheist" is a bit of a straw man argument. Most atheists lose their belief in gods because of intellectual honesty. Calling themselves something else wouldn't be honest. I *do* understand what he is saying when he points out that the word "atheist" is like the word "non-astrologist." But people don't lose their jobs, families, friends or custody of their children because they don't believe in astrology and the word "atheist" needs to stop being the equivalent of "Satanist" or "monster." The only way that's going to happen is throwing the word "atheist" out there and letting people see that it's not any big deal, really. It's an attempt to break an illusion which is always to be applauded.
And I have a feeling Sam is advocating this argument because he's tired of paying for a bodyguard.
Myth has been the subject of a lot of research and there's a large literature on it. Neither Dawkins nor Harris seems to be aware of it, but they both condemn myth and warn of the dangers of believing myths, and of harm from religion (which incorporates myth). In 5B's transcript, Harris states that he has the task of persuading a "myth-infatuated world" that it doesn't need delude and frighten itself with "iron-age fairy tales."
The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions has a two page article on myth. And further on:
And the opposite may be true. A myth may be in perfect agreement with the available evidence; i.e. it may be factual. As an example, the foundational myth of one religion involves a guy born among the Sakyas, into a family named Gautama. Having realized that life was unsatisfactory, he left home and underwent a six year quest involving study with various teachers and undergoing various austerities. He finally came to the solution for unsatisfactoriness when he gave up the austerities and sat in meditation. As far as anybody knows, these things actually happened.
Karen Armstrong gives five criteria for a myth:
1) It usually deals with death in some way. In the case above, the solution to unsatisfactoriness provides an escape from endless rebirth, which is the same as saying that it provides an escape from endless redeath.
2) Mythology is inseparable from ritual. People have been following this guy's example for millennia, sitting in meditation in hopes of finding the same solution.
3) Myths force us to go beyond our experience. Nirvana is usually believed to be beyond the experience of most people.
4) Myth shows us how we should behave. Following the myth above, one should meditate and avoid austerities. Associated with the myth are various sets of precepts and the eightfold path.
5) Belief in an invisible but more powerful reality. In the example myth, that's everyday reality stripped of craving.
Harris is creating a myth of his own. In regard to item #1, one would have to include his beliefs about the importance of grieving as part of his myth. #2 is easy; Harris is an advocate of meditation. #3 comes from #2; meditation takes us beyond our normal experience. For #4, Harris believes that we should be persuading a myth-infatuated world that it doesn't need it's myths. And for #5, we have the unknown: mysterious, beckoning, and constantly leading us to new areas of knowledge.
I haven't done justice to Harris's myth (or to Buddhism's either). In his own telling of it, his myth is much fuller and more compelling. It communicates things Harris believes much better than a mere recitation of facts would. If psychologists were to disprove Harris's beliefs about grieving, it wouldn't alter the underlying truths of Harris's myth. And note that I am crediting Harris's myth with pointing to truth, primarily truth about our ordinary (non-Buddhist) ignorance and the way we deal with that ignorance.
But it's still a myth, and Harris is clearly as myth-infatuated as anyone. Myth comes from our need for explanation, and if religious people are myth-infatuated, then I doubt it's possible to find a normal, well-functioning human being who is not myth-infatuated, Harris included.
I have other bones to pick with Harris and Dawkins. There is psychological research that neither appears to be aware of. There is sociological research that neither appears to be aware of. Just within the topic of myth: If that's true, it undermines Harris's and Dawkin's attempt to identify religion as the sole or primary source of problems such as terrorism. I think any religion can be criticized, but I think the criticisms of Harris and Dawkins are mostly irrelevant. But that goes beyond the issue of whether Harris is creating a myth.
The going beyond that results from this is the experience of life without myths. Of course, that doesn't actually happen, but that doesn't weaken the power of the myth.
He's using it to mean a set of beliefs for which many people believe they have evidence, evidence from their personal experience. This is the same evidence that Harris offers in support of meditation.
No, I'm not. I was very specific about what I meant; a narrative that communicates religious beliefs. Harris's myth doesn't refer to a mythical founder or creator, but he does have a narrative. That narrative is basically his autobiography generalized to form a description of what humans are and what we should be doing.
I don't know either, and it's irrelevant. Myth doesn't depend on factuality, and it doesn't depend on literal belief. By focusing on factuality and literal belief, Harris is missing the point.
There's a history of fundamentalism in both sides of my family. (My parents met at a bible college social function.) I get annoyed sometimes, but I've learned that people are doing the best they can with the knowledge and beliefs they have. :-)
Dawkins aggressive? It's true he doesn't understand why he has to treat silly ideas with respect, but then I don't recall Billy Graham or the Pope feeling they had to treat atheism with polite respect or go out of their way to protect the sensitivities of nonbelievers.
The interesting thing is that the anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, along with other type of researchers, who study religion _do_ treat these "silly ideas" with respect. If, as Harris says in 5B's transcript, love and curiosity are enough, then curiosity would lead one to wonder why myths are so important, and to investigate them. And love would certainly not lead one to treat the beliefs and/or myths of the majority of the world with disrespect.
I think you're missing Harris's point, actually. He's saying you can get what the mythology offers without shoehorning factual inaccuracies into your belief system for the sake of a traditional mythology.
people who take any iron age mythology as literal history have embraced a delusion. Harris, et al. do not an objection to myths AS MYTH. It's an objection to myth as science or history. You can't have a scientific objection to something that is a product of wishful thinking and self-deception. Try to image a scientific critique of Santa Claus.
people who base their behavior on delusion are sometimes harmless and sometimes vicious. Scientifically examining that is a serious subject of inquiry.
you are confusing disrespecting an idea with disrespecting people. If someone believed that aliens from outer space were whispering in their ear, you would not treat that belief with respect. Compassion, maybe, but not respect. But when someone claims God is whispering in their ear we're suddenly supposed to genuflect. Dawkins doesn't understand why he should treat those two kinds of belief differently. From where he's standing they are identical.
There was a time when I would have agreed with much of what Harris says. There are those of us for whom the stock religious myths have never offered anything. Harris's myth is partly based on a critique of religious myths, which makes it rather compelling if you don't buy the stock myths. However, it's still a myth, and it's no more scientific than the myths it critiques.
Harris's "myth" doesn't contradict reality. That's the difference. Embracing illusion or rejecting it.
Dhammapada 24:344 "When you have run out of the forest of craving, why do you run back? After struggling to free yourself from Mara’s bondage you take up the chains again and drape them about you like a cloak. The Dharma is a key to freedom. Take courage and come out into the light."
I don't think we're in a position to say why so many people have these beliefs. Credibly establishing that would take some pretty heavy-duty social science. One explanation at least as plausible as yours is that they're frightened about how their life might change if they look to closely at these myths, because they believe, as you seem to, that it is the belief structure which fuels their spiritual life, rather than the related spiritual practices. At least, that is where Christian people have always gone, when I have pushed them on this (all five of them.) Harris's point, which accords with my own experience, is that the belief structure is irrelevant to spiritual practice. Take away belief in heaven and hell, and you can still love your neighbor, <i>etc</i>.
It is a "myth" in the sense that it is a narrative, but it is "scientific" in that it values beliefs based in direct experience rather than assertions received from some external authority. That's a useful value, because beliefs grounded in direct experience are harder to manipulate.
I didn't know this! I knew he had a basically Buddhist outlook and practice. I checked the fine print and I don't think you have to believe the metaphysical claims to be a Buddhist. They aren't mentioned in the Eight-Fold Path.
What explanation did I give?
That's not the answer given by current research.
Based on what Harris has written, it appears that his belief structure is relevant to his spiritual practice, as you call it. Or to put in the more or less standard terms, he exhibits the usual link between myth and ritual.
It is non-scientific in the sense that it ignores the available evidence.
I've made two claims. At risk of being tedious, I'll restate them.
1) Harris has a myth and engages in ritual in a manner not very different from, say, a Christian.
2) Harris's criticisms of religious myths are mostly irrelevant.
In support of those two claims I've pointed out the following:
1) Harris's public statements show a belief structure with all the characteristics of a myth.
2) Specific aspects of Harris's myth are contradicted by available evidence, just as specific aspects of the Christian myth are contradicted by evidence and/or logic.
3) The value of a myth doesn't depend on it's factuality, nor does the fact that something is a myth depend on its factuality.
4) People who are well educated and familiar with science are using and critiquing myth without recourse to science; i.e. they are using myth to deal with things that science doesn't help them with.
5) There exists research in several fields that deals with the function of myth and ritual and how they came into existence. It's not an area in which one can make assumptions without reading the literature and then declare oneself to be scientific.
Citations?
How?
What evidence?
The tedious part is, you keep making these claims without any supporting arguments, and uncited appeals to academic authority.
I pointed out the value of an evidence-based narrative. The tedious part is that you're reiterating your beliefs without responding to me.
I already pointed out that this is missing Harris's point, and you didn't respond.
None of this is scientific. That's not the point. The point is that belief systems uncritically absorbed from an external authority are dangerous, because they are drastically more manipulable than belief systems which are based in direct experience. That includes belief systems which are uncritically absorbed from "scientific" authorities.
How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion, by Illka Pyysiainen
Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion, by Todd Tremlin
Since I can't quote quotes, the question is how Harris's myth results in his ritual.
Part of his myth is the dangers of religion. As as result of his myth, he makes public appearances and gives talks. These are given to people who are already in agreement with him, so they don't do much to convert people who disagree with him. This is essentially the same as a minister giving a sermon to a congregation, and it's a ritual in either case.
Are you looking for citations? See above.
The claims did have supporting arguments. I didn't always repeat them, but I did state them at least once.
As far as I know, if I'm claiming that a body of literature exists, I only need to state that it exists and I've seen it (or parts of it). If you want citations, you can ask (which you did), and I can give you citations (which I did).
I'm sorry if my response wasn't clear. I'll restate it. If Harris's narrative tells us things that aren't supported by the evidence, in what sense is it evidence-based?
My apologies. In what way does it ignore Harris's point?
I don't disagree with you, but I don't see how that's relevant.
5B, I apologize for irritating you. For the most part, your posts show that you try to understand what someone is saying and respond on topic and to the point. I know from my own not always successful efforts to do the same that it requires work. I appreciate the effort and I consider it a kindness.
Because of the inability to quote quotes, I had to go back and forth from post to post in a separate console from the one I'm writing in. If I got confused about something you said, please correct me.
If by "myth" you mean "narrative shaping behavior and world views," fine, but that's not what Harris is speaking against. The role of evidence in shaping belief is the key thing. This is not to say that he's claiming his beliefs to be entirely grounded in evidence. He says: </li><li> <b>Specific aspects of Harris's myth are contradicted by available evidence...</b>
I'm not sure which aspects of Harris's myth you're talking about. Perhaps you mean this: Your conclusion here is a non sequitur: Just because communities structure themselves around myth and ritual, it doesn't follow that religion isn't problematic. This is a conflation of myth and ritual with religious beliefs, which is what Harris is arguing against. As you say, Harris has a myth, in the sense of a narrative which guides his life, and you could call his proselytization a kind of ritual, if you like. (Seems like a bit of stretch to me, but OK.) But it doesn't follow that he is guided by an authoritarian belief system, which is what he's speaking against.</li><li><b>The value of a myth doesn't depend on it's factuality, nor does the fact that something is a myth depend on its factuality.</b>
I agree with the last part, subject to the definition of myth I've given here. The first part is almost a flat contradiction of Harris's point, with no supporting argument. Factuality <i>per se</i> is not the key point, but authoritarianism is. Belief in nonfactual religious myths is usually supported by some recourse to authoritarianism, and that makes the believer easy to manipulate.</li><li><b>People who are well educated and familiar with science are using and critiquing myth without recourse to science; i.e. they are using myth to deal with things that science doesn't help them with.</b>
I think you're confusing Harris with Dawkins, here. Harris is specifically saying in the talk above that science is an inadequate replacement for religious experience. He presents a nonscientific practice (if you like, a "ritual" grounded in the Buddhist "myth" of the four noble truths and dependent origination) which he says mainstream atheism has no language for, and argues that atheism puts itself at a "rhetorical disadvantage" because it ignores this experience. So Harris is actually one of the people you refer to in this component of your argument. It's just that he then goes on to say that authoritarian belief systems are neither necessary nor sufficient to this experience, and are dangerous.</li><li><b>There exists research in several fields that deals with the function of myth and ritual and how they came into existence. It's not an area in which one can make assumptions without reading the literature and then declare oneself to be scientific.</b>
Firstly, it's ludicrous to claim that any study of "myth and ritual and how they came into existence" is scientific. We just don't have the tools for scientific inquiry into a historical question like that. Secondly, you seem to be claiming that there are important aspects of this literature which Harris ignores, and imply that these aspects vitiate his argument. You've given me one quote from Burton (which I've requoted above), whose relevance to Harris's position is unclear to me. You've given me two book-level citations. Looking at the tables of contents for them, their relevance is also unclear to me. Can you give me some specific references to this literature, and specifically describe how they pertain to Harris's position?</ol>
The practices that Harris seems to praise did not develop in a vacuum, and they did not develop in spite of myth and metaphysics. Rather, the metaphysics and philosophy - the mindset - of the East nurtured, guided, and is responsible for the techniques and practices that we have received today, and as such I’m also far from convinced that it is even possible let alone desirable that they be removed from that context - uprooted from their soil - and transplanted into the foreign and rather unnurturing environment of Western secularism. After all, could Harris have ever learned his practice and philosophy from any Western institution?
I would say "along side" rather than "in spite of." It is my belief (based on no evidence at all) that the Buddha's followers added in what they felt was the necessary metaphysics. They did it unconsciously because the metaphysics were a part of the culture in which they were embedded. When the Buddha's ideas are transplanted out of their original culture then the "add-on" nature of the metaphysics becomes more clear.
yes, he could have. Christian tradition has a contemplative branch that is very similar to Buddhism. However, it's loaded with the metaphysics of western culture which Harris (and I) find distasteful. Fortunately you don't need to be religious to practice mindfulness. As Ven. Robina Courtin once said even bank robbers can benefit from mindfulness.
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3000&Itemid=244
Venerable Robina says that in and of itself, without wisdom and compassion, mindfulness is no big deal - even bank robbers or snipers need to be mindful. The power of mindfulness, as used in Buddhist practice, is cultivating it to check our mind and motivation.
"A meditator resting in pure awareness and perfect understanding of the fundamental nature of mind, unaltered by mental constructions, will be unable to pull the trigger and kill someone. This kind of luminous awareness is a state of wisdom and is the natural state of a mind that is entirely free from ignorance and mental toxins and spontaneously imbued with unconditional altruism and compassion. Such a state is the result of having achieved inner freedom and should not be confused with mere mindfulness and bare attention." Matthieu Ricard - The Author of - The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet.
Cultivating A Good Heart with Venerable Robina Courtin:
http://www.archive.org/details/Tse_Chen_Ling_Portland_Robina_Courtin_Good_Heart_20050611
Kindly,
P.
This is an article he wrote in Shambhala Sun called "Killing the Buddha". It should provide insight into his thoughts on the matter.
fivebells Quote
"The point is that belief systems uncritically absorbed from an external authority are dangerous, because they are drastically more manipulable than belief systems which are based on direct experience. That includes belief systems that are uncritically absorbed from 'scientific' authorities."
RenGalskap Quote
"I don't disagree with you, but I don't see how that's relevant."
fivebells Quote
"I think we're still talking past each other, because for me, this is the key point Harris is making (that is, that belief systems uncritically absorbed from authority are dangerous. I must admit, I'm basing this on the talk in the OP, and reading some reviews of his books. I haven't read him directly.) He's saying, or at least I take him to be saying, that the typical religious belief systems are neither necessary nor sufficient for a rich spiritual or ethical life, and put people at risk of manipulation."
/Quote block
I probably haven't communicated very well, and so I'm going to try to be careful to be clear here. I agree that beliefs absorbed uncritically can be dangerous. I'm glad that you clarified what we are talking about by saying "typical religious belief system", which would exclude your beliefs and mine. I think that Harris is assuming that what is sufficient for him is sufficient for everyone else. I'm arguing that this isn't true, and attempts to criticize beliefs because they aren't necessary for the person making the criticism are irrelevant. My needs, your needs, and Harris's needs in this matter don't necessarily apply to all other people. The two books that you got offer a theory and supporting evidence about what people need and why they need it.
fivebells Quote:
"The points you raise don't seem to be relevant to this, or seem to be argued inadequately:"
I plead guilty to inadequate argumentation.
Quote block
RenGalskap Quote:
"Harris's public statements show a belief structure with all the characteristics of a myth."
fivebells Quote:
If by "myth" you mean "narrative shaping behavior and world views," fine, but that's not what Harris is speaking against.
/Quote block
I made two claims. One of them was that Harris has a myth. If you have no problem with that claim, then we don't need to debate it. My other claim was that Harris's critique of religion is irrelevant. Not factually wrong, but irrelevant. By ignoring the evidence and theories of psychologists who are studying why people believe in gods and why they hang on to that belief with such tenacity, he's missing the point of religion (for most people).
Quote block
RenGalskap Quote
"Specific aspects of Harris's myth are contradicted by available evidence..."
fivebells Quote
"I'm not sure which aspects of Harris's myth you're talking about. Perhaps you mean this:
RenGalskap Quote
Quote:
"...there is a general consensus among cultural anthropologists that myths and rituals function to structure human societies just as the other systems of signs and patterns of practices.
--Burton L. Mack, _The Christian Myth_
If that's true, it undermines Harris's and Dawkin's attempt to identify religion as the sole or primary source of problems such as terrorism."
fivebells Quote
"Your conclusion here is a non sequitur: Just because communities structure themselves around myth and ritual, it doesn't follow that religion isn't problematic."
/Quote block
It would be a non sequitur if that was my argument. My point was that myths and rituals interact with other systems of signs and patterns of practices to structure human societies, and that means that the various systems and patterns reinforce each other and constrain each other. To give religion to sole or primary responsibility for terrorism is to assume that there is an area of society where religion acts without the support or constraint of other systems and patterns. I defy you to come up with an example of a terrorist act in which non-religious factors played no major part, or that would have occurred without the contribution of non-religious factors.
fivebells Quote
"This is a conflation of myth and ritual with religious beliefs..."
"Religious studies have rightly focused on myth and ritual as the primary phenomena of the social and culteral constructs we call religion."
--Burton Mack, _The Christian Myth_
If we're going to talk about religion while leaving out myth and ritual, I'm afraid we're not going to have much to talk about.
Quote block
RenGalskap Quote
"The value of a myth doesn't depend on it's factuality, nor does the fact that something is a myth depend on its factuality."
fivebells Quote
"The first part is almost a flat contradiction of Harris's point, with no supporting argument."
/Quote block
I've quoted from the ODRW's explanation of why the value of a myth doesn't depend on it's factuality.
I thought I would be able to respond to all five points, but I've run out of time. I'll respond to your points 4 and 5 tomorrow night, and I'm sure you'll respond in the meantime. :-)
A lovely quote from the Dhammapada, MrsC., thank you. And it does demonstrate how important myth (Mara) and metaphoric imagery (forest) are. Indeed, they are integral to expressing ourselves.
Even in hard science, we use metaphor. After all, we speak about "laws" when we may only be describing local and recent (in cosmological terms) habits!
What Professor Dawkins seems to fail to notice is that human beings function by interpretation, not by direct apprehension of reality (whatever that may be).
Well, that lets the air out of the debate. :-)