qwerty, I think you get it but I'll make it explicit: lightgigantic's claim that "empiricism is insufficient to distinguish reality from illusion" is just a poorly obscured claim to having some kind of special knowledge or special abilities. Hence the distinction between "sense perception" and "the state of the seer." Theoretically we make no such distinction, and in fact altered states of consciousness are rather easily explored in an empirical manner. This last fact is inconvenient to lightgigantic solely because it diminishes his own sense of authority. We can say that he is not defending any form of rationalism, either, for exactly the same reason; "the state of the seer" would be said to enclose an alternate rationality not subject to philosophical inquiry. The subject is, as it were, totally cut off from the Other in terms of experience and rationality, and all his attempts to express his "special abilities" are utterly futile. In short, lightgigantic's own position is that it is useless to debate him. I have to agree.