MB> All things are "solved by consciousness".  Whether anything is solved by
 MB> intuition or intellect, the subjective or the objective, is the
 MB> question.  It is true that only the objective can be refuted
 MB> exteriorily.  The subjective must rely upon the "I am".
 FM> tension in man's existence as existence in what Plato called the metaxy
 FM> (in-between the divine and the human) is well documented as is the
 FM> differentiations of the symbols generated by such tension over epochs of
 FM> the past occuring in various parts of the world.  Attempts to "solve"
 FM> the problem of what constitutes the totality of reality is PRECISELY
 FM> what results in the various "philosophical SYSTEMS" which have proven to
 FM> be illusory and wrong. "History" only makes sense when
 MB> Yet, they have also resulted in various philosophical systems which have
 MB> proven to be right!  This is merely analogous as pronouncing that the
 MB> advent of the automobile has proven to be dangerous and inhumane,
 MB> because  of all the bad drivers which have been produced by such an
 MB> awful machine.
   Mark, I am printing out and saving your entire post because I'm having
trouble understanding your meaning and distinctions between the 
intellectual"
and the "intuitive" in consciousness as it respects the human experience and
the symbolization of experience so will make no overall response here.
     I am especially concerned with your curious statement that some
"philosophical SYSTEMS have proven to be right!"  What does this have to do
with the advent of the automobile?  Could you elaborate on the analogy a bit
more but more to the point WHAT philosophical systems have proven to be
"right?"  
      Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------