Arguments presented in the sections above clearly demonstrate that we
cannot *prove* that any given set of axioms is superior to another.
Neither do we have any *a priori* basis for judging axioms,
certainly not for axioms intended to apply to other axioms or to
metaphysics in general. Metaphysical reasoning is an oxymoron. Our
meta-axioms must then a) provide a basis for judging axioms that is
descriptive, not absolute; b) be ``appealing'' enough that you, the
reader, decide to adopt them even though they can't be proven and are in
the end absolutely arbitrary.

Lacking logical necessity, absolute truth, or any other of the bullshit
categorizations of ``knowledge'' we are left only with one of the oldest
criteria, one that preceded the scientific revolution, one that in some
senses preceded the entire intellectual and philosophical revolution
that accompanied the emergence of man from his evolutionary roots. We
have esthetics. Axioms can be adopted for no reason other than that
they appeal to you, that you ``like'' them, that *from* the axioms
you adopt a world-view *does* emerge from logic and reason that *works*. Axioms that satisfy this sort of criterion *are* the basis
of all modern physics and indeed modern science - beautiful laws that
actually appear to describe the world around us, always provisionally
accepted to the extent that they work, always with Ockham and an
absolutely subjective conceptualization of ``mathematical beauty and
precision'' attendent upon the process of their conception and testing.