                           20020513.01

     The sensitive reader may well object that I am engaging in
reductionism, that I am arguing that learning and knowledge,
indeed that subjectivity intuition, emotion and faith is all of
them "nothing but" expressions of the physical ori chemical state
of the brain  or its constituent elements. But such a xriticism
is invalid. The statement is untrue and reflects a serious
misunderstanding.

     The fact that I play the Goldberg Variations on w mechnical
instrument, the harpsichord, or on the violin, or on any other
inbstrument, the gact that the notes are printed on paper, the
fact that a poem is printed in a book, does not alter or detract
from the sacredness of the poem or of any other text.  This
discovery, these facts do not alter the spirituality of the
experience. They merely relocate the mystery of the experience to
a different place.

     The consequence of this discovery will not be the
objectivation of subjectivity: just as the discovery of the
anatomy and physiology of the eye does not alter the subjectivity
of vision.  For subjectivity is an intrinsic and ineradicable
facet of human nature; it is neither prejudiced nor impaired nor
threatened by discoveries, necessarily objective, of its
foundations, functions and expressions. The reality of I know, I
believe, I feel, I understand will not be compromised by
knowledge or understanding of how this knowledge, this belief,
this feeling come about.  Indeed the concern that subjectivity
might be violated by knowledge or for nthat matter by certain
actions, is of great importance in the history of thought, and is
even today of much practical imprtance in our political life.

                            * * * * *