I don't deny the importance of the body or of genes, and niether do any of the phenomenologists that I cited. Nor do I, or they claim that the subject is constituted by discourse. That is poor, undergradute film major Lacanianism. The entry into the symbolic that enables the formation of the subject as we know it involves the auesition of language, but that is a different claim. And who would deny that language itself is conditioned by genetics? Dirk you seek to think that I am participating in the semiotic discourse of film studies. I'm not. I'm reading continental phenomenology and seeing how it relates to what I can and can't know about films. Phenomenology has been accepted by film scholars from Eisenstein to Bazin, though it is most often ignored in favor of the mishmash of ideological analysis and *post-structural film theory*. We do have serious philosophical difference about *ordinary language philosophy* (an impossibility for Wittgenstein) and analytic philosophy. I think those differences are important to go into at the level of actual arguments about philosophical writings. An analysis of the status of *experience* in psychoanalysis by way of the Webster's deffinition of it is just not an argument. Any generalizations about say psychoanalysis should be supported by citations, even on screen-L. To speak within pre-established discourses in film studies is a watse of ttime that could be spent thinking through film. The philosophical grounding of multivariable experimental analyses of film reception seems week to me. I don't even think we know what the data are telling or what the relation between that data and signification is. It also doesn't, because it can't show us how certain protocols of spefctator ship are inscribed within texts and how they are taken up in spectatorial peraxis. What I object to most is the attempt to constitute reception studies as its own feild, as if formal analyses of films didn't also involve an element of reception. This and the tone of experimentalists who write as if their methodology gives concrete results while the rest of us are building castles in the air. lgs. ps I still maintain that although in Freud's biologist phases he posited antotomical structures that would be discovered in the brain that would correspond to the phenomenal structures he was describing, norigorous reading of Freud will find in his writing propositions that can be tested be experiment.