The appeal to direct experience is disingenuous, the very idea of direct experience is a theory of experience, and so much the worse that in this case it involves certain specific mental gestures which quite often yield unexpected results and further openings. It is a kind of sophisticated detachment closely akin to aesthetic contemplation, but differing from it in simultaneously and strenuously denying detachment, refusing the product, or offspring, in order to more closely merge or be included in the object. Direct experience then is the abandonment of the theory of direct experience after wresting from it that peculiar gesture. So then it is not the ruthless reduction of everything to 'what it is for me' absolved from its very ruthlessness by sacrificing the 'me' at the same time. If the gesture amounted to no more than that then there would be no essential difference in applying it to the experience of inanimate objects and abstract ideas and applying it to other subjects. Even if you can't say how these differ, the things you are entitled to reduce to immanence and those you are not, you feel at a gut level that they do, they must - that here the 'ought' is primary.