Any sensation is pleasant, but the pleasure is not an object nor a feature of the thing sensed taken by itself.
You taste an apple but you know the taste isn’t in it.
You walk into a room and put one and on a cloth couch and another on a granite coffee table. The coffee table is “cooler”, though everything in the room is the same temperature. It’s cooler when you walk into an air-conditioned room than after you’ve been there for two minutes.
You see something pink, then get closer and see it is red and white squares. Would it be “real” pink if you made the squares small enough? Bees (under UV light) see sunflower petals as having two colors. We see one. Who is right?
It is hard or soft only relative to strength. A chickadee experiences an ankle-thread like we experience steel leg irons, a newspaper could crush an insect in a single light stroke, spider webs are as fatal as tar pits in the insect world.
The same applies to large and small, which Aristotle knew were subjective too.
Aristotle again: rough and smooth are subjective, for they relate to the arrangement of parts relative to us. But shape is an arrangement of parts too.
The unity of motion over time is essentially depended on the memory of the subject; but motion is a unity over time.
Bees and men see things under different lights, and neither light is the true one. What is the basis for the truth of waking experience as opposed to dreams?
Huxley: no one mode of subjectivity has any intrinsic value over another. Chemically altered consciousness is no better or worse than “standard” consciousness. Each has it benefits and limitations.
Melancholia is now depression – but it has always been allied with genius and great art. Who then can call it a disease? It has value in some contexts and not in others. I celebrate my disease.
If we can celebrate disease, why not deviancy?