I actually find Brahman less abstract that Rta :) For what reason?
But again what is this principle? It's written in the portion of my reply you quoted above. What other kind of answer are you looking for? I can't show you a picture of Rta or give an exhaustive account of it. Just as I can give you only an abstract definition of the Brahman but not display it to you. You can have instances of Rta in manifested form - such as: "being unwaveringly truthful leads one to develop clarity of thought, helps the mind overcome attachments to the world, helps one gain credibility in society, and eventually leads to spiritual illumination". Just as you can have instances of the Brahman in the form of a chair, the ocean, or yourself. Any greater understanding of either Rta or Brahman is a matter of realization, for which devotees of various categories engage in years and lifetimes of rigorous Sadhana. That is what you have to engage in if you want a more direct answer then is written in the books.
Because it is the operating principle of the universe. So? That is a strange expectation to have of the operating principle. I hope you are not taking "principle" in the sense of a formula or definition that can be written in a book. You can't even write all the laws of physics known till now in a single book - and it's not as if all the work in Physics is now done. Not to mention the human sciences, all the other sciences, ethics and what not. Rta governs all of these, but leaving aside all the questions posed by these you want it to be something that answers your one question, and then it will be satisfactory?
I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space. It matters in this case because you are using the assumptions of Western philosophy to evaluate an Eastern concept, such as in your expectation that the very concept of Rta should should be useful for a chosen purpose of yours like a transcending the pragmatic differences between something and something else, even though it nowhere purports to do that. Perhaps you are erroneously assuming Rta to be the counterpart of some concept that exists in Western Philosophy, and declaring it to be invalid because it doesn't do the same things as your Western concept does.
I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking The demonstration I provided was of Rta not standing in the way of maintaining difference between "is" statements and "ought" statements, through examples. You have not touched those at all. So what reasons have you provided ? The transcending pragmatic differences...? As I said above, that is a fancy expectation of yours from the concept of Rta which has nothing to do with the treatment of the concept in Indian philosophy. What I understand by naturalism in ethics is the idea that people should look to how things are in order to decide how they should act. I demonstrated that Rta suggests nothing of the sort, rather it asserts that moral laws are grounded as firmly in the fabric of existence as natural laws are. So, there. If you aren't contesting that Rta suggests an is-ought equivalence, then I'm not interested in discussing what other expectations you might have of Rta.
I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order
Well, it is posited (or rather declared by the scriptures, realized as true by spiritual aspirants at the end of their search, and posited/believed by the rest) that there is a universal order - that order being called Rta. This is what I have been saying repeatedly, and wondering why you have strange theoretical expectations from the concept. I don't know much about Logos.
Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms... You seemed to be overusing that term, and my point was that normative ethics isn't only one kind of ethics. That is all.
no subject
For what reason?
But again what is this principle?
It's written in the portion of my reply you quoted above. What other kind of answer are you looking for? I can't show you a picture of Rta or give an exhaustive account of it. Just as I can give you only an abstract definition of the Brahman but not display it to you. You can have instances of Rta in manifested form - such as: "being unwaveringly truthful leads one to develop clarity of thought, helps the mind overcome attachments to the world, helps one gain credibility in society, and eventually leads to spiritual illumination". Just as you can have instances of the Brahman in the form of a chair, the ocean, or yourself. Any greater understanding of either Rta or Brahman is a matter of realization, for which devotees of various categories engage in years and lifetimes of rigorous Sadhana. That is what you have to engage in if you want a more direct answer then is written in the books.
Because it is the operating principle of the universe.
So? That is a strange expectation to have of the operating principle. I hope you are not taking "principle" in the sense of a formula or definition that can be written in a book. You can't even write all the laws of physics known till now in a single book - and it's not as if all the work in Physics is now done. Not to mention the human sciences, all the other sciences, ethics and what not. Rta governs all of these, but leaving aside all the questions posed by these you want it to be something that answers your one question, and then it will be satisfactory?
I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space.
It matters in this case because you are using the assumptions of Western philosophy to evaluate an Eastern concept, such as in your expectation that the very concept of Rta should should be useful for a chosen purpose of yours like a transcending the pragmatic differences between something and something else, even though it nowhere purports to do that. Perhaps you are erroneously assuming Rta to be the counterpart of some concept that exists in Western Philosophy, and declaring it to be invalid because it doesn't do the same things as your Western concept does.
I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking
The demonstration I provided was of Rta not standing in the way of maintaining difference between "is" statements and "ought" statements, through examples. You have not touched those at all. So what reasons have you provided ? The transcending pragmatic differences...? As I said above, that is a fancy expectation of yours from the concept of Rta which has nothing to do with the treatment of the concept in Indian philosophy. What I understand by naturalism in ethics is the idea that people should look to how things are in order to decide how they should act. I demonstrated that Rta suggests nothing of the sort, rather it asserts that moral laws are grounded as firmly in the fabric of existence as natural laws are. So, there. If you aren't contesting that Rta suggests an is-ought equivalence, then I'm not interested in discussing what other expectations you might have of Rta.
I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order
Well, it is posited (or rather declared by the scriptures, realized as true by spiritual aspirants at the end of their search, and posited/believed by the rest) that there is a universal order - that order being called Rta. This is what I have been saying repeatedly, and wondering why you have strange theoretical expectations from the concept. I don't know much about Logos.
Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms...
You seemed to be overusing that term, and my point was that normative ethics isn't only one kind of ethics. That is all.