Thomas Brophy wrote:

> Interesting points cladking,
> Actually I had a laugh when I read your "Even "I think
> therefore, I am" is taken as a working hypothesis rather than
> "Truth" itself. " --I am now reading (and planning to use in a
> course) philosopher Roy Bhaskar's "Reflections on
> Meta-Reality". Bhaskar therein makes a very good case for a
> new philosophy of Reality in which "thinking" is not the
> ultimate ground of being...

I'm not familiar with Bhaskar but just read the Wiki.

This is pretty close to my understanding of the nature of the easiest way to understand my place in the world and nature itself from a personal standpoint. Essentially there's no real alternative to simply assuming that the world is exactly as we percieve it but we must always be on guard against misperception. Even if the assumption is wrong it's of no importance at all because the alternatives result in no gains in understanding the real world of nature or the real world of perception. It behooves us to always remember this particular assumption just as we should try to remember all the axioms and definitions we use to comprehend nature, cognition, and ourselves.

I believe that this kind of thinking will tend to lead to a general understanding of reality and that a generalist will always be more able to use his knowledge all at once than a specialist. It would be possible though to specilize from a genalist standpoint and, no doubt, some have. More to the point though and more on topic is that I believe this is exactly the same understanding and perspective that people had when zep tepi occurred (whatever exactly it was). Indeed, I believe ancient people all thought this way and had very little choice in the matter because language itself was metaphysics. Language arose from nature which was the nouns and verbs. The "gods" were actually aspects of nature, natural phenomena, rather than independent consciousnesses. Because our language is so different the ancient language has been opaque to our understanding.

I believe I understand the ancient writing but in no place is "zep tepi" actually defined or given enough defining characteristics by context to understand its intended meaning. All I have on the specific question is another hypothesis.

Perhaps, I should be looking for some of Roy Bhaskar's writing. Thanks.