Re:Badly flawed (Score 1)

I do not believe I have rejected any model, except for an implicit model that says that there is nothing going on in human sociology that we are unaware of. That implicit model proposes that the human state is fully explained and rational, which anyone would have to be deluded to believe. Nor do I believe that the Reciprocality model is complete - quite the reverse. It is merely the beginning of a new way to see things that is more complete than the vacuum we've had to date. The argument of this posting seems to be that since all is mush, and there is no such thing as reality, no theory or attempt to understand anything can ever be valid. Certainly no model can be an imporvement on any other, so there is no point trying. I do not agree with any of these ideas. There is in fact an objective reality, and we can get better at seeing it. All mystics invite us to see what is there. Not some arbitrary human-constructed irrationality. This is true from the Christian "what is before your sight" to the concept of the material world being a wonder to be studied with reverence that is at the core of Islam, to Steiner emphasis on mathematics, to Gurdjieff's "perfecting of one's objective reason". Claims that it is the mystics that are irrational are not usually backed up, and simply accompanied with contempt/threat displays. It is true that I have not repeated the *conventional* interpretation of Magritte's "This is not a pipe" - to a packer my view of it would by definition be wrong. That's why I've never wasted time on things like academic art history. But as far as I know, Magritte did not endorse the conventional interpretation, and mine does more to explain the abiding, disturbing nature of this painting than the usual one.