Without a possibility of change in meanings human communication could not perform its present functions.
Fruitful discourse in science or theology requires us to believe that within the contexts of normal discourse there are some true statements.
God cannot be reduced to a sample for analysis.
I wanted a theory that would allow one to live outside the office with the same philosophy one uses inside it.
If I were to adopt pure mechanism as a philosophy, there would be no way I could choose to be a scholar.
The detached observer's view is one window on the world.
If the scholar feels that he must know everything about any topic, he is in trouble - and will not publish with a clear conscience.
It is also, I would guess, a universal that in all societies people value respectability granted to them.
Language is not merely a set of unrelated sounds, clauses, rules, and meanings; it is a total coherent system of these integrating with each other, and with behavior, context, universe of discourse, and observer perspective.
Normal social behavior requires that we be able to recognize identities in spite of change. Unless we can do so, there can be no human society as we know it.
Outward failure may be a manifested variant of inward success.
Revelation and the nature of truth must be viewed in reference to the structure of language.
So I see that Christianity in believing in a Creator pulls together more facts, data, inner experience and ability than any mechanistic view could hold for me.
That a society controls, to a greater or lesser extent, the behavior of its members is a universal; but the methods, the particulars of that control, vary from one culture to another.
Courage to continue comes from deeper sources than outward results.