[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

> [Case]
> So you feel safer just taking the mystics word for it when they say they
> have plugged into the ultimate nature or reality.

[Platt]
Feel safer? My safety is not the issue. I leave that to the police and 
the military. 

[Case]
You feeling confident in the testimony of mystics? You think their testimony
is reliable? You ascribe validity to their testimony? Do I need to start
making up new words to ask questions? There is precedent for that here.

[Platt]
What is the "true meaning" and "significance" of any experience?

[Case]
Do you think your individual mystic experience is generalizable to everyone?


[Platt]
The solitary events of  the creation of the universe, life and your 
particular birth have plenty of meaning don't you think, like the fact 
that you are asking about meaning? 

[Case]
I trust the experience of physicist over mystic with regard to the solitary
creation of the universe. That's their job. As for the creation of life
there is nothing to suggest that it is a one time only event.

The solitary nature of my birth is and instance of a general process. I am
and iteration.

[Platt]
Many science types do, and I haven't seen you accept any truth other 
than what would pass scientific "tests." But, I could be wrong about 
the latter. 

[Case]
Science types are more likely to declare what isn't true than what is. But
there are many kinds of truth.

[Platt]
Slopping thinking? Seems you have some criteria of truth after all. 
Pray tell, what might they be if not based on assumptions of science?

[Case]
That would depend on the question asked. But generally speaking I am looking
for answers that apply regardless of a particular point of view. That is
what the assumptions of science are set up to reveal. What goes up, must
come down was true regardless of what one thought about it until the Voyager
spacecraft was launched.