George Carless wrote:
> > The truth is NOBODY'S possession nor can it be reduced to mere symbolic
> > arrangements of sound or print. It always has been and continues to be a
> > mystery.
> In other words, then, the 'truth' cannot be defined, understood, appreciated, dealt with in human
> terms, or supported by logic. And lo, we're back to arbitrary mysticism whose only justification
> is, by definition, itself.
Try truth as a social relation. One can't "possess" it, but neither is
it something transcendental that "possesses one." I don't see how it's a
"mystery," however. Physicists do not yet know whether "dark matter"
exists or not, and if it does, what it is. But not knowing is not the
same as being particularly mysterious: if fact, the word "mystery" seems
to me to have much reference to reality only in perfectly humdrum
situations -- "It's a mystery to me what his motive was in leaving
early," i.e., "I don't know and I don't care and I'm not going to try to
discover why he left early." As Peter uses the word it seems to be sort
of an ideological "No Trespassing" sign.