Frank, I say, as a matter of principle, that my propositions are "ultimately" provisional. I've said that as an epistemological principle many times in the past. But I don't want to weaken my rhetorical style by "confessing" before every utterance that I may be wrong, that I'm not certain, etc.. It is unpleasant to realize that you would like to have that kind of rhetorical advantage. I prefer to think of our discussions less as "debates" than as "conversations" (please see the latter part of my signature line).
Also, when I credited your Grand Tautology (that Reality is what is) with being a "full" rather than an "empty" tautology I was acknowleging that it has the psychological value of being meaningfully rewarding for you--like my favorite mantra, tat tvam asi
, is for me--subjective truths, both of them. But when I assert that the "objects of my experience" ARE me rather than objective forces impinging on (a) delusional "me" (tat tvam asi)
, I am not presenting compelling evidence that could persuade a skeptic like, say, Setanta; in that sense it is logically empty. And what I say about my mantra is also the case with yours.
Now do I have to add that all this is provisional (or what you call conditional)?