It is one thing to protest against a tyrannical political situation. How does one protest meaningfully against an accepted canon of knowledge which does not correspond to perceived experience?

Traditionally one takes one's case to painting, to tone, to something--anything--non-verbal or if verbal, poetic or fictional.

The evidence for such protest is, of course, anecdotal. But one has to examine the source: what is the level of experience behind the protest? Doesn't that carry some weight? Or do we have to wait 150 years to recognize the validity of the finding?

A book that treats this phenomenon bears the unlikely title "Proust was a Neuro-Scientist." Though I disagree with some of its presentations, the point is well-taken. Those who demand proof are often 150 years behind those who detected the phenomenon by experience and found a way to convey their experience, though it went unrecognized for the intervening 150 years.