Working from home again this afternoon due to strong desire to not fall over or throw up onto servers. Got lots done in an attempt to avoid thinking about philosophy. Back at it, sadly.

Think position I was outlining earlier is a funnily inverted form of Kantianism, that is to say, things are transcendentally real, empirically ideal, real relative to our actually operative concepts, but we are aware from experience that these concepts are subject to change.

Also thinking, on related lines, that the main difference between moral assertions and empirical or scientific or whatever you care to call them ones is the degree of consensus on how to determine whether they are true or false. This could obviously be traced historically to some extent. One would similarly expect to find more vigorous attacks on and defenses of a realist interpretation of the objects of religious thought in cases of schism or heresy, suggests a way of looking at Anselm as not even trying to produce a persuasive argument but rather one designed to increase coherence within a shared belief system.

OK, going to do more work now.