Hi John, Good to hear from you again. Thanks for the clarification. You wrote: "We did NOT say that there is no objective reality - we said that given the state of knowledge about the impacts of our own f1 and f2 filters, we can't at present distinguish what part of our ongoing experience is associated with the world external to ourselves and what part is the contribution of our own processing - our nervous system." I see. I respect this position. Am I correct in thinking that according to Catenada Don Juan held the view that I attributed to you (ie. no objective reality, only perceptions)? You also wrote: "the description you offered of Buddhism and Hinduism are quite like feedforward filter or self-fulfilling prophecies" I agree, but would guess that the mechanisms you consider behind feed forward filter or self-fulfilling prophecies would differ in function (at the unconscious mental level 'vs other more esoteric levels) from some Buddhist and Hindu conceptions of pre-set influences. Are you open to the position that there may be no objective reality? And either way, would you take a stab at my question: If there is no room for an external influencers(ie, all experience is "attracted" and there is no room for an external influencer) and "would that allow us to give up the "no content" rule of ethics you have presented since "the other person is attracting the behavior anyway"." FYI, as far as I am aware, in most interpretations both of the philosophies I mention accept "full self responsiblity" and reject fatalism. Eric