firstly respect!

my thoughts;

i think the above is too widely worded and not administratively workable, it leaves open the possibility of not much being agreed upon, eg if 1 person disputes a principle were pretty much fucked from the get go. it relies too heavily on others intellect, which maybe lacking. 100% consensus isnt always a workable standard to judge against. this maybe why previous attempts at this havent got very far. i think my test has a better type of wording, it needs to be stricter maybe but the wording and step by step structure is more administratively workable. this is not a diss by the way or me massaging my ego.

im with u on the whole pragmatist approach to truth! also with u on best intentions and dealing with single principles at a time. to ensure this i propose a new thread per principle eg UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE; KINO? .. UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE: NEG?

b4 we start though we need to nail down an agreed upon test. also is context to be ignored, or should it play a part so as to determine universal principles in different contexts eg HB 10 context is different to HB 6 context?

i propose something close to the following updated test;

1) is the principle more helpful than not helpful in an interaction with a girl?

and

2) are the instances where it is not helpful rare?

and

3) "but for" the use of that principle a sucessful interaction with a girl would not be possible....(maybe this is where context needs to come into it)

now this seriously tightens up the test, possibly a bit to strict for my liking which is why it may be useful for context to be brought into the third limb. the third limb "but for test" is a classic legal causation test. its a much tried and tested way of determining whether something caused something else..a key element to our investigation.

obviously each principle would need to be assessed against each limb and we would collectively need to decide as to whether the principles pass each limb. i propose the standard of simply needing more consensus than not, rather than 100% consensus. the safe guard here is that our consensus will be arrived at through real critical investigation (hopefully) rather than arrived at through people reading fairy tale bull shit in books.


peace