Ham: Now, it so happens that experiential existence is the reality we all participate in. We have no direct experience of any other. If we grit our teeth, snuff out our intellect, and convince ourselves that this cause-and-effect, multiplistic world is all there is, we have no problem. Most philosophers won't settle for that, however. Things are not what they seem, they've told us. Existence does not come into being from nothing,
they say, and an infinite regression of causes is illogical. Intuitively we believe there is something else that supports or transcends the whole scheme of things. The theists called it God. Existentialists theorized it as Being. Merrill-Wolff was convinced it was Consciousness. The Vitalists posited it as the universal Life Force. And Pirsig declared that it was Quality. Ron: I'm not sure if Quality transcends as much as it is conceived as the sum total of all, this goes with some beliefs of God, being and the like. Logic aids in understanding experience but it is not experience. Ham: Where do we go from here? Well, some old codger named Ham came up with the concept of an "uncreated source" that negates sensibility so that its value can be appreciated autonomously. He named this source Essence and defined its autonomous agent as being-aware. So far, Ham's thesis has been variously described as "antiquated", "egotistic", "theistic", "quasi-religious", "Randian" and "rightwing". (But old Ham persists.) Ron: And old Ham should persist, Like I said before, you come about as close as one can get to MoQ via SOM. Bodivar would do well to take notes from you. Ham, what my aim is, is that we share much more in common than you may want to admit. Ham: MoQ rejects axioms, logic, metaphysics, and definitions, yet appears to flourish on analogy, metaphor and euphemisms. Could the secret of its popularity be that it offers a worldview that makes people feel good without requiring them to be analytical? Ron: I think we have something here. I think it runs analytics out to its conclusions by giving a rational explanation about rationality itself. offering a worldview that makes people feel good without requiring them to be analytical. "Requiring" being the pivotal word. When we look for reasons for abstractions we intuitively grasp for concrete meaning. All the Questions come from the same logic that struggles to answer them. If we just realize this and live our lives, we can focus on the things that really matter to us. Ham: When the individual realizes his freedom to choose, he need no longer be constrained by the collective value system. Ron: No argument there, I think this is where both Metaphysics join in agreement. I like it when things come together. Thank you Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
