A defining question

[Thrasher]

I really wish I could just sit here and watch this thread all day. err...to everybody doing the work of actually writing out the answers, I just want to say thanks for the work. I really want to write something substantial, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything to add that isn't discursive or trite.
Since there are obviously some minds here that can help me tackle this, I just want to ask this: If there "is no body," and hence "no mind/body problem" is it even approaching correct to say that a mind which still has substance and therefore a responsibility to figure out some kind of "truth" as a starting point for moral decision making, can ever approach truth as "what is," or "that which is"? Is a Caspar Hauser or boy raised by wolves and completely "uncultured" still able to discern truth, or is that just solipsism?

[tessa]

I really want to write something substantial, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything to add that isn't discursive or trite.

~looks over Thrasher's thoughts and queries~

If that's "discursive or trite", I'd be no doubt blown away by your substantial effort.

Seriously.

I'll add something personal here. I originally posed the question because I am seeking answers to my life's questions. Some here understand that, others, not so much. It doesn't matter as people can say what they want in any way they want. I can put on my wading boots any time I need to.

Many would say, "why the hell ask here??". Because "here" is one of the few places I feel comfortable in asking. Yes, the anonymity helps, but it's more about like-minds and such, despite the differences we obviously have. My other asking option involves those who are very...defined in their responses. While I can appreciate their input, I also appreciate the outside-the-box thinking to be had here.

Thank you for your input Thrasher. You've given me even more to consider. (and I mean that in a good way)