If there is an underlying principle, or principles, it or they would manifest through all things to such an extent that to grasp such a principle or principles would effectively be to use it/them in a self referential loop by which the only recourse left would be the observation of it/them. By principle is a thing known and yet in knowing the thing the act of knowing it is the principle that allows it to effectively be.
A universal principle(s) would effectively be so subtle that in effect it would be unusable for the act of use would be the principle itself thus leading to question if there is any use at all but rather the principle(s) naturally unfolding. There is an assumption that an ultimate truth would be pragmatic, a means to manifest what is wanted, unknowing that the principle of want would supersede such a percieved universal truth to an extent that pragmatism would not be the ultimate end as there would be foundations beyond it.
Truth, a universal one in these respects, lends itself less to a practical truth and more to an ingrained central awareness of how things are for the consciousness which percieves such an ultimate truth would effectively be composed of said truth. To grasp such truths would effectively be the act of grasping itself, metaphorically speaking.
In regards to ultimate truths, the Four Laws of Occurence and the 3 Laws of Process hold true to this nature given these truths may be seen as foundational as they are the means by which distinctions occur and with the means of distinction occur all further distinctions of knowledge follow suit.
1. The first law of occurence, "there is occurence" is an occurence. This first law follows itself.
2. The second law of occurence, "there is one occurence relative to another occurence" relates to the first law thus follows itself. This second law follows the first.
3. The third law of occurence, "these relative occurences are an occurence" is the the occurence of the first and second law, thus follows itself. This third law follows the first and the second.
4. The fourth law of occurence, "occurences are empty in themselves, they are points of transition to other occurences" is the occurence of he first, second and third law this follows itself. This fourth law follows the first, second and third.
To negate the laws of occurence would effectively be to use the laws for negation is an occurence, one form of negation exists relative to another, relative negation are a negation and all negation are empty in themselves without an antithesis, negation are but transitional truths.
To argue against these laws of occurence would effectively be to use them thus justifying them.
In regards to the 3 Laws of process:
1. Things occur by recursion, this law repeats itself when observing repeated qualities. To test this law would be to see it repeat by the confines of the test having repeatable qualities. To test recursion would be to use it. To negate the law of recursion would effectively be to repeatably negate, thus using it.
2. Things occur by isomorphism, this law exists when viewing repeated qualities resulting in a new appearance. To test this law would be to see a new appearance of the thing tested by the test itself. To test isomorphism would be to use it. To negate the law of isomorphism would effectively be to use a different appearance of it for what negates the law is an isomorphism of the principles of negation.
3. Thing occur as variable, this law exists when observing a quality being transitional and yet maintaining an identity. To test this law would be to see qualities within the test transition to what is being tested. To test variability would be to use it. To negate the law of variability would effectively be to use it for negation is a constant with many forms.
Using these two sets of laws, as evidenced, would be effectively to act through them thus relegating an ultimate truth as not something so much to be used but rather the act of use itself where truth is less of a tool but the unfolding of the tool. By knowing does reality unfolding and yet this unfolding is the act of awareness itself thus leaving truth to be less of a pragmatic experience and rather the transcendence of pragmatic experience by the act of experience. Dialogue of such truths is the emergence of them where a fixed set of laws exist and yet are unusable as they determine the nature of use. Philosophical problems are thus not limited by nature to what solutions are required to solve them but rather the act of awareness as to the nature of a thing. While ultimate truths may be definable, there subtley would limit practicality as not an ends but rather a distinction.