"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:urednfGmS_X9uUXMnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 7/6/2013 6:20 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:QrGdnSwFF7s95krMnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>> Still, there are few choices: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma >>> >>> Take your pick: circularity, infinite regress, or meaningless syntax. >> >> Oh, come on, those are the choices for the mindless rationalist only. > > Perhaps. > > Suppose one merely imposes a constraint upon > "knowledge" in so far as it be "objective".
> There are an indeterminate number of choices > for subjective knowledge. Its limits lie > with the imagination of the individual.
There are as many sensibilities as there are individuals, but one and only one rationality: only the sceptics and the liars deny that.
> But, what of knowledge in the objective > sense?
I so I believe, that ultimate knowledge is not subjective, although it is not "objective" in the usual sense either: the comprehension of cosmos is more of a spiritual adventure, then, among other things, a rational endeavour.