RE: virus: Biochem, sorta
Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:54:17 -0600

>All this assumes, as I do, (based on the evidence...), that there is
>nothing to be dealing with in religious experiences other than
>Wade T. Smith | "There ain't nuthin' you
> | shouldn't do to a god."
>****** ******

I wonder, what opinion do you hold of Julian Jaynes' _The Origin of
Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_? It's a dusty text by
now, but interesting in its own right.

Toward the accumulation of useful information,

P.S.: A solipsist could make a decent case that religious experiences
aren't the only thing that we hallucinate.... :b
"Hallucination" in fact, seems to be used frequently as a
definition/vaccime, especially when the word "consensual" is prefixed to it
-- it invalidates the ramifications of _any_ type of perception by defining
the perceptive mechanism as (temporarily?) flawed. It also seems to be a
vaccime -- no insult intended -- that you seem to make extensive use of. Do
you think that it is always a beneficial meme to hold? Doesn't it just
again unearth the dead-horse question of "What is health?" and in the
process lend itself to intellectual purging of ideas that are arbitrarily
defined as "diseased" or "defective" -- whether or not this is verified by
objective test?