Dr. Chuck Axelrod                                           December 7, 1992

Professor of Sociology

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg                                                          This is the first page of four more, not given here.

 

Dear Chuck:

 

Your cooperation far exceeds my desire for a knowledgeable intellectual to comment on and criticize my manuscript. It was not even fair to burst into your life dumping this massive writing into your lap. You have returned my tactlessness with dedicated attention and detailed commentary. Before discussing your contribution I must thank you very much, and ask you, please continue improving my planned book with your critique.

 

The correspondence theory of truth has had various meanings since ancient times. The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Macmillan Inc. USA. 1972 ed. pp. 223-231) traces its origin to Plato, Aristotle, and later to Aquinas, and  the ninth century Jewish Neo-Platonist Isaac Israeli to whom "truth is the adequation of things and the intellect". I have attempted to be the follower of the Aristotelian definition to judge by the "the facts of the case, by being or not being so, that a statement is called true or false." Moore is also an Aristotelian and expresses the nature of correspondence between propositions and reality. It would take many pages to comment on the refined arguments of idealists and empirically inclined thinkers. I rather focus on your message, which was taken by heart. You have warned me, in a nice manner, not to be ‘absolute certain’ about my method either. I am an advocate of certainty,  within the general notion of  ‘human reality’, which is ‘conditional certainty’ that is relative, or uncertain in an absolutist sense.

 

Conditionally true knowledge has been advancing all sciences since the dawn of civilization. My goal was to present CONDITIONALITY of knowledge consistently throughout the book. Applied to my own methods; things that I have attempted to demonstrate are conditionally true, and should be corrected in the light of new evidences. Conditional knowledge should ‘correspond' to verifiable facts, at the prevailing human ability to demonstrate them. New knowledge emerging from new evidences is also conditional.

 

Regardless how wonderfully useful it is, knowledge must be corrected as before by newly emerging facts, in never ending cycles. When a presumed human reality turns out to be unreal, our knowledge of the world has to be corrected, thus giving us a higher degree of probability of approximating the true nature of things by the current state of knowledge. I have attempted to demonstrate conditionality in each chapter, as in the chapter ON LIFE. The founding assertion of my thesis is that conditionally we exist, life is real. We live, breathe, and pass through a brief span of life, then perish. All these appear to be `fundamentally' given within the realm of human reality. Is this common concept of human existence true? Is life real? Who can say it is absolutely true? But one may reverse the argument and ask; who can say that it is absolutely false? C-logic (Conditional Logic) offers a pragmatic compromise, in order to avoid a state of permanent numbing uncertainty and to replace it with a creative concept of conditional human reality. Doubt forever incapacitates and drives one toward desperation, inaction, lethargy, if not complete mental or physical collapse–total depression. Life death, pain and pleasure—the ‘fundamental,'basic,’ and ‘tertiary’ aspects of human existence--are demonstrated activities, human reality, that can be studied scientifically..