| 
the concious system is never completely in sync with one another. It is shared and common amongst all, thus making it seem universal, but it is never identical, because there is perceptual difference".
To provide a universal reference point would not be to make consciousness, as it were, homogenous - after all, each person is pent up in the frail bark of his principium individuationis - but to provide certain shared characteristics. That's why they're called reference points. And a reference point cannot be relative... or it seems likely to be a less than adroit reference point.
"Yet it seems that this concept provokes problems for yourself because you require a "stable" [ perhaps in other words "universal"] definition or answer".
Nope, I was dismantling your ideas [i]reductio ad absurdum. I simply took to their logical conclusions the fledgling strands of argument and revealed them to be at variance
.
"If we knew all the facts, one individual's "truth" would be inconsistent with another's".
Pure, undiluted dogma, acccpeted on the authority of messrs Foucault, Derrida and co no doubt. In this case, you're not a Phenomenologist at all, but a post-structuralist.
"The concept of universal determinism is an empty abstraction".
Ah, but in your eyes there's no such thing as an abstraction is there? All thought is "shaped by context". Such abstractions make claims to universality the kind of which you stridently deny. Therein lies evidence that your feverishly espoused relativism is little more than boorish pat. You'll probably say that this abstraction is empty precisely because it is an abstraction, so it is worth pointing out that a lot of people share this abstraction, and that this constitutes a point at which the myriad of supposedly incommensurable viewpoints can intersect, hitherto providing... yep, you guessed it... a universal reference point.
|
