> As I have pointed out many times in the past, a RELATIVE 
> reference (e.g. one
> man to the rest of humanity) is just as good for most 
> purposes. Your
> continual insistence that only an ABSOLUTE reference is 
> useful is... not
> useful.

Only while you fail to acknowledge my point :-)
You make, perfectly, as previously, the key point that I was 
making.
You say

        " ... just as good for most purposes ..."

but this is only true as long as the people you deal with 
agree with you.
As long as you control "most purposes" you may be OK, but in 
the general order of things "most purposes" breaks down.

The eg Chinese ruling core (cited as the obvious example due 
to point made in the end of this sentence) may be relatively 
few, but they will very significantly disagree with you on 
key points of the philosophies that you would wish to see as 
"right" and, as they are for practical purposes are 
supported by the economic might and therefore for practical 
purposes every other sort of might of about 1.3 billion 
people, that makes them right and you wrong, for the 
purposes of your argument.

My point, distilled (?) from my last post, was:

> ALL "cause" is mirage, phantasm, pretence, self delusion
> without an absolute reference outside the system.
...
> "If your cause is not founded in God then it has no basis 
> in
> reality or usefulness that somebody else cannot deny
> entirely justifiably".
...
> But until we accept that we cannot ever be a
> meaningful arbiter the other guy's dissenting opinion is
> every bit as invalid as our own.

SO:    Starting from your premises, I MUST [[IMHO] [tm]] be 
"wrong" whether I agree or disagree with you, and you must 
be too ;-) :-) :-)

10 hours 40, to takeoff ...

Back to work.



        Russell 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist