{Inner Truth: Love [continued]}[17th June 1988]

[Redbook5:166][19880617:1949c]{Inner Truth: Love [continued]}[17^th June 1988]

.19880617.1949

[continued]

If this objection were to be raised – to the para on p3-4 of the N[ew ]S[cientist] essay* – that if there is a possibility of subjective distortion then the truth of the quality is no more beyond doubt to the perceiver than is the truth of anything else perceived – I should, naturally, disagree. I might distinguish the uncertainty of the phenomena which are the objects (not, strictly, 'subject', as I wrote)** of experimental science from the uncertainty of our experience of inner qualities in these ways:

(1) Nature of object

(a) (i) Our uncertainty about the real nature of what we perceive with our external senses is due primarily to the fact that we know that what we see is due only*** to the properties which affect our external senses, and that this does not tell the whole story about the nature of the 'reality' which has these properties: other methods of perception, not naturally available to us, reveal other properties.

[(a)](ii) Only secondarily is our uncertainty due to differences between individuals' perception mechanisms etc.: this is indicated by the fact that contemporary**** accounts by different people of the same external phenomenon will be substantially the same in meaning.

*(ref [[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000]{The Great Divide}[11^th June 1988]ff, ] 148C-D [at [Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000d]{The Great Divide [continued (4)]}[11^th June 1988], final para])

**[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000d]{The Great Divide [continued (4)]}[11^th June 1988], final para, final sentence: 'The same cannot be said of any of the phenomena which are the subject of experimental Science.']

***(cf III. [Probably somewhere in [Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]ff, &seq]?)

****[to be understood in the sense 'contemporaneous', presumably.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16062018]