" Well, I'm not exactly sure then what you protested against in my original post. What you just said is my main point. "
My point has always been that there's only one reality, and we can only disagree with each other if we are lying, being foolish, or failing to communicate. 99% of the time I find it's the latter.
" Perhaps you disagree that this apparent isomorphism can potentially be accounted for under a different scheme than some kind of logic/math are 'the rules of reality' scheme (i.e., neo-logicism)? "
No, I don't disagree with that. Perhaps the Lotus sutra, the Old Testament, or Alan's posts, are more accurate descriptions of reality than modern science. Who am I to know? Sometimes I listen to Bach and I feel as if all the secrets of the universe have been revealed to me. I'm certainly not in a position to claim that people don't know what they are talking about just because I can't understand them.
However, I do know this much: if an idea has no logic or is not based on an empirical fact, then I'm in no way forced to accept it as truth. I may, but I may not, and the choice is entirely mine. But when it comes to logic applied to facts I have no choice, and I don't think anybody has. That is all I'm trying to say.
" What I have in mind is to treat such fully undeniable statements as myth. "
You're asking for trouble in my opinion. A universe without a single absolute truth would be an awful place in which to exist. Our universe may not be perfect but I wouldn't call it awful. Ergo, some absolute truths must exist since we have evidence of their existence.
Perhaps you are smart enough to realize that what I'm saying above is that I believe in God.
" Having degrees of truth, but not deluded into thinking that fully undeniable statements must always be the case (i.e., I'm talking about external statements about the metaphysical structure of the world and not tautologies). "
Tautologies are devices of language and are not important outside a linguistic context (yeah, it sounds like nonsense but I trust you get where I'm coming from)
Perhaps all we have to do is live with the certainty that absolute truth (or God) must necessarily be out there, even if it remains forever beyond our reach. Sounds good enough to me.
" My position is best stated by an analogy. In most instances it is correct and proper to say that 'chairs exist', but such fully undeniable statements about external statements of the world are deniable in some instances (e.g., if we reject that large objects actually exist, for example). "
Perhaps, but the statement "chairs exist" is never deniable if you happen to be sitting on one.
" Hence, I stick with the philosophy that is most meaningful, which happens to be this one - that we choose beliefs that 'fit' our idea of what is meaningful based on interaction with nature. "
My only argument, Harv, is that you can't do away with "logic" and somehow retain "meaning" - one is consequence of the other. If logic is not a source of absolute truths, which is a possibility I rule out but still a possibility for some people, then all we're left with is meaninglessness. That is in fact what people believed to exist before the creation of the world - chaos.
From a theological point of view, it's ridiculous to deny the truths of science and commonsense in order to assert the existence of a supernatural God. As I said, the real miracle is that the universe is perfectly ordered.
Have a great weekend!