[MD] "100% confident"

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA --



> What smiley face does this transcendent reality
> have beyond finite world?  If philosophy can't answer
> this question, then "it is not a philosophy, let alone
> a metaphysical hypothesis."  This is seriously how you
> sound Ham.

By putting "smiley face" in your paraphrase of my question, you make my 
point better than I do.  What it tells me is that you not only have no 
conception of a transcendent reality, you see no meaning or value in the 
idea.  This is a striking example of the kind of nihilism I was explaining 
to Marsha.

You are one of many here, probably the majority, who have been persuaded 
that relational existence is the only reality, and that philosophy must 
concern itself with causal and moral explanations of experience.  The 
consensus is that anything else is poetry, mystical koans, or linguistic 
reflections on Nature.  Metaphysics was an ancient approach to objective 
knowledge that has since been replaced by scientific objectivism and is now 
a waste of time.  All philosophy must conform to the world as we experience 
it.  We can euphemistically think of it as Quality, Consciousness, or 
Goodness, but "deep down" we know it is substantive, concrete, and 
fundamental to our being.  Man is a biogenetic product of a material world 
which will be always here, while we come and go as fleeting patterns of 
intellect and organic complexity.

Do you see the nihilism here, SA?  Transcendence, cosmic purpose, and the 
metaphysical meaning of life have all been sacrificed for a belief system 
that is nurtured by philosophical platitudes which supplant our spiritual 
yearnings and make us feel good in our ignorance.  Like medicine's panaceas, 
they are the sugar-coated pills that tranquilize our symptoms without curing 
the disease.

But if Qualityism works as a panacea, why all the debate in this forum?  Why 
do we argue incessantly about what is real, true, and valuable, and how to 
parse the MoQ levels to make it so?  Why do we make up poems that express 
our pain, anguish, and love of beauty if these emotions are what we really 
feel?  Could it be that we were too hasty in rejecting a Creator, spiritual 
insight, and a transcendent reality because such ideas are considered 
intellectually stultifying and old-fashioned?  Is it more meaningful to 
"play it cool" and humor the crowd than to give serious consideration to a 
metaphysical reality founded on an uncreated source?

> And this absolute truth is called essence.  Hmmm,
> who came up with essence.  Unless essence spoke to you
> one night Ham.  It's comedic and serious at the same
> time.  Your tickling me Ham.  It could be true.

Yes, it could be true.  And if you'd wean yourself off those panaceas for 
awhile and consider this concept, it would do more than "tickle" you with 
comedy; it would intrigue you with wisdom.  It might even get you out of the 
woods long enough to move you in the direction of spiritual satisfaction.

Essentially yours,
Ham