- Dear Een,
Thank you for your answer. The probably rather painful necessity for explicitation of the core element of this discussion to a kierkegaardian like yourself was nevertheless of some help.
I don't think I had much mistaken what was at stake but I probably failed to express the precise area where I saw a difference between your conceptions.
When I questionned your respective conceptions of natural law, I did mean to ask whether you considered them as laws or as knowledge.
By this I mean that a law perpective implies that these laws exists in the outside world as principles for everything (or at least for all that is governed by them).
In the knowledge perspective on the other hand, the so-called laws are theories --'grammars' if I am entitled to use a now-familiar analogy. -- in which concepts are the products of brain activity with no garanty whatsoever of their 'actual' existence.
Since I do not wish to engage too far in a completely wrong-headed direction, I shall only ask whether this alternative makes sense to you or is sheer irrelevance.
In the hope of some more fruitful exchanges, I remain
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]