Jejudo, South Korea
Have my views change since I wrote this?
Not much. If anything, they've become stronger over the years.
There is one difference, however. I now see the whole "you can't know" approach as an epistemological trick: you set up the rules so that it can't be done and then argue that it can't be done.
Doubt is an essential aspect of knowledge, but it can never overcome knowledge for without knowledge you can't doubt.
On Chinese cosmology lacking anthropomorphistic characteristics:
Not true. They worship something up there high with mighty power.
Well, I never meant to deny that there weren't gods (though 'gods' is a tricky word when used here) nor did I mean that the Chinese don't worship something higher. My point is that, traditionally, the groundless ground is not someone but something.
You said the same thing.
If you disagree, you'll just have to show me.
What do you mean by "ultmate truth"?
Yeah, I don't know. This is one of the things I've changed on. Ultimate truth is a ruse. Ultimate truth isn't 'out of reach', it doesn't even make sense.
On human-created worlds:
Not true. many people don't get used to it and that is why there is general election every 4 years.
Not quite. My point is that the world is filled with a staggeringly diverse amount of imaginative description. I see no reason not to explore it.
On the human dilemma concerning knowledge"
You were very right. To be a human is defined by birth, not by knowledge or exclusion.
See above. I no longer see this as a dilemma. Or rather I see humanity as defined by action. That's a loaded thing to say and I may have to explain later, but I'll leave it for now.
How unpoetic talking! "Blown" here meant wind. Wind means flowing of the air...flowing of the air means hot air goes up and cold air comes down. and what behinds that? natural-law....this is what you meant by "personify". A "concret" understandable cause.
You simply wanted to say that you have to have a lodic to personify, not by imagination.
No, not exactly. I see no reason to constantly have to go back to the 'infinite regress'. It's still there, and it should be explored -- ad infinitum perhaps -- but that isn't going to change how I live.
A leaf blown off tree. You wanted to say that other might think that wind, fate, God did it while you consider it a coincidence. Co with what incidnece? may I ask. There must be something behind it. YOu may not want to personify it but you must want to materilize it or fomulerized it or calculate it or human-logic it.
Well, no. Sometimes there is something behind it and sometimes it's just a coincidence (that is, we see a connection that is not in fact there). We do this all the time.
On metaphysical cause and effect:
Curiosity is build-in charactor. Curiosity will lead you to search for the beginning and the end. can't help. and comunicating or not, the fact is there and the cause-effect is there. So, communication has no role on the truth of cause/effect.
This is a big one. Yes and no.
On change and judgement:
Sorry, I didn't quote you here. Forgive me, Ron. But I've changed my views here. Who is to say? Who is to judge? I am. You are. We are.
That was already implicit in the original post by the way.
On human nature:
Do you mean that there is a build-in law in every human being? you are right.
Yes and no. You may be right that there really is something like a universal human nature. I'm not sure. I do think that generalizations can be made and I do think that we all, for the most part, see things the same way. It's not easy and it's not always fruitful, but, and we have to be careful here.
That does not mean that you should do what I do or that you should believe what I believe or vice versa.
In fact, I would argue that that is the last thing we should ever hope for.