>>55
You should write a Bible. Like Ron L. Hubbard did, but replace God/Xenu with "realistic/materialistic means".
Bibles attempt to describe the truth, albeit a false truth upon subjective ideals. I merely posit that there is a truth, I don't claim to know what it is, and in fact I am bold enough to say that all religions and spiritual ideologies imagined by humanity are probably false.
Nope. Subjectivism doesn't define anything. You youself define, as you wish. You can extend subjectivism future to so called "consensus reality", when a group of people've experineced their own personal "God".
``Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In extreme forms like Solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it. For example, Wittgenstein wrote in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: "The subject doesn't belong to the world, but it is a limit of the world" (proposition 5.632). One may also consider the qualified empiricism of George Berkeley in this context, given his reliance on God as the prime mover of human perception.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
Subjectivism by definition implies the necessity of consciousness, for without consciousness one cannot be ``aware'' of anything.
How can you reduce that, what you can't see?
Just because our eyes cannot observe a phenomenon without the aid of a materialistic tool that exploits some emergent principle within our universe (such as lens and optics), doesn't mean it isn't real.
There are other ways to reason about causality that does not excite the visual modality.
The map is not the territory.