In a sense, the universality I have in mind does transcend historical circumstances: Particular manifestations of goodness, truth and beauty do not exhaust their normative source. We also do not have control over what can properly be called goodness, truth and beauty. These values have their own intrinsic authority. But, in another sense, universality that has not yet been in any way articulated in the concrete remains opaque to us. To become more truly known, universality needs to acquire historical shape. The universal needs the particular and vice versa. They form a union, a synthesis. Without the concretization that the universal receives in particular works of morality, thought and art universality does not quite show itself in the world of human beings. Usually we have to work hard to know what ought to be. To the extent that works of goodness, truth and beauty have previously been created, it is easier for those who live now to orient themselves to the universal. Earlier achievements help those who are now trying to articulate their sense of higher value to hone their sensibilities. ~Claes Ryn

Prof. Ryn continues to show a great deal of patience and consideration in his responses, which is probably the most impressive thing about his already impressive, thoughtful response to his Claremont critics.