What Peter Ralston Gets Wrong

[r0ckyreed]

I got Peter Ralston’s new book Whereof One Cannot speak. I just started reading it and am noticing one thing that doesn’t seem right. 

Peter Ralston states in the book that experience is subjective/relative/indirect and isn’t what is true/objective/direct. It seems like he is hinting at a veil of perception or something when he says our experience/perception isn’t truth. But it is. Qualia is Absolute Truth. Experience is what Truth is.

I can understand if he was referring to something subjective within our experience, but experience itself is Truth. It cannot be otherwise.

He also seems to hint at there being an objective world in which we interact with.

I will continue reading and contemplating to see if any new understanding comes about, but it seems like Ralston may be meaning something totally different when he refers to Consciousness and experience/perception.  But they are both the same in my eyes - no pun intended.  

Let me know your thoughts.

[Jirh]

It's not right or wrong. It's a perspective.

The idea that experience is truth is aligned with solipsism. But who's made that epistemic decision?

If you define the present moment as the truth, then yes experience is the truth.

But that's limited, and nobody truly lives that way. You may think it's because of delusion, but at the end of the day you are doing the same. You are believing in a past and a future, and you will probably never lose that belief. And you clearly believe in others, which you are seeking discussion with. These are truths. They're your reality, even if you pretend otherwise.

Ralston is not pretending, that's the difference.

Edited 31 minutes ago by Jirh