FM> An open secret, John.  Even though whether or not ANYBODY says it, our
 FM> knowledge of final reality is by definition partial.
 FM> This does nothing to hinder action or moving with the greatest wisdom we
 FM> can muster in political action.  It only dictates that we maintain a
 JB> "Greatest wisdom", in a species -INCAPABLE- of final reality. Seems,
 JB> you're bestowing the capability to political leaders, a small group
 JB> individuals, that which you say they can't have,  KNOWING.
   Wherever did you EVER see me saying that man cannot KNOW????  That is
utterly ridiculous.  What is it you're trying to attribute to me?  Do you 
are
to listen or are you merely interested in binding me into some chain of YOUR
making?  I don't feel like wasting bandwidth retyping something you've 
lready
read and apparently badly misunderstood.
   If you assure me that you NEED to have it repeated I'll be glad to do so.
But NOT in order to have the response of a deliberate false formulation which
then is attributed to me.  I don't care for those kinds of games.  I don't
mind somebody disagreeing with me and setting forth contrary ideas but you 
re
not doing this.  All I see is your conjuring up a false assertion and then
attributing it to me. 
 JB> Are we to assume "greatest wisdom" comes from "experience?" If so, -how-
 JB> can a small group of men, incapable of knowing, KNOW, from past
 JB> experience? I am not arguing a nihilist view, but rather questioning,
 JB> "how MUCH are we able to KNOW?"
   A great deal - but not the whole or the final.  Every revelation intending
to describe the whole of reality ALWAYS turns out to conflict with somebody
else's truth of reality.  All revelations are partial - penultimate.
 JB> "Healthy humililty" is agreed, and the question becomes how does one
 JB> then square with your and Vogelin's belief of man's inability of KNOW
 JB> REALITY?
   That is not MY belief and it CERTAINLY wasn't Eric Voegelin's.  I NEVER in
ANY post I EVER made stated ANY SUCH THING.  The inability of know ALL of
reality certainly IS patent.  If you disagree with that then don't take 
thers
to task.  Just describe that final reality if you know it or know somebody 
ho
does.  
 JB> Do you not see such questions of "healthy humility" and man's inability
 JB> to KNOW REALITY involve questions of "how MUCH are we able to KNOW"?
   That is precisely what I've said in numerous posts.  What is the problem?
 JB> Ah, the question isn't regulation, but one of -DEGREE-? At the risk of
 JB> going out on a limb, even, Andrew, would
   Surely if you can manage as you have to talk in a civil manner to me then
you would know that I have good reason not to care what "Andrew" thinks and 
m
happy that he SEEMS to have decided to cease addressing me.  You well know 
hy
I feel that way.  Surely you wouldn't expect anything else.
 JB> To put simply, to more one believes in man's ability to know or KNOW,
 JB> the more one arrives at central regulation and vice versa.
   ??????
   You still appear to be mixing apples and oranges by talking 
hilosophically
about the extent to which man can KNOW the full truth of reality in one 
reath
and then speaking of the necessity of man to act in politics and commerce.
Not certain at all what you're trying to say.  Why now just offer your 
pinion
for critical examination?  We not only have an obligation to seek as much
knowledge as we can and to listen when others seeking the same thing 
arnestly
and honestly attempt to communicate it. 
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
 
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------