[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


> Essentialism states that finitude is attributed to value awareness.
> Therefore the finite self is an illusion, even by your own hand.
>
> This is what you would call one of those primary
> ontological questions that need to be answered to complete
> a metaphysic by your standards. Which is it in Essentialism?
> is the finite self illusionary or not?

Essentialism states that finitude is an intellectual interpretation (or 
construct) of experience, the basis of which is value sensibility.  Given 
that experience is the appearance of an otherness relative to the self, and 
is the source of all knowledge, the existence of that otherness is 
contingent upon the observer.  Essentialism also posits ultimate reality as 
absolute and undifferentiated.  Since existential otherness appears to be 
finite, multiplistic, and relational, either reality is not absolute or 
existence is not reality.

Your conclusion is that the finite self is an illusion.  But one could just 
as well conclude that the appearance of otherness is an illusion, especially 
if the individuation of selfness is primary to the finitude it constructs. 
But this is a chicken-and-egg game.  I maintain that self-awareness and 
experience are concurrent events.  That is, there is no observer that is not 
a being-aware.  Therefore, if existence (i.e., the appearance of otherness) 
is an illusion, then so is the subjective observer who experiences it.

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.

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.)

> Logic functions on particular axioms. MoQ rejects axioms.
> There is experience and description of experience which
> utilizes being without logic therefore transcending the "vat"
> of western subject/object metaphysics.
> Now you may argue that logic is the way in which we understand
> the world but this would be leaving the term open ended and
> confuse the process of axiomatic systems of truth finding with
> experience itself.

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?

[Ham, previosuly]:
> An agent is part of a system, which means that it can't be "absolutely"
> anything. Freedom, like everything else in existence, is relative to the 
> source.
> But within this relational system the individual is an autonomous entity. 
> It is
> a unique conjunction of awareness and beingness which is the power to
> create and direct its own reality.  Conversely, a "collective mind" is
> dependent on the values and authority of the majority.

> Ron:
>
> au·ton·o·mous    (ô-tŏn'ə-məs)
> adj.
> Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent:
> adjective
> 1.  not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary";
>      "a sovereign state"
> 2.  existing as an independent entity;
>
> 3.  (of persons) free from external control and constraint

Can't quarrel with the dictionary.

> Ron quotes Ham:
> " But the finite self (being-aware) is our reality, illusionary or not."
>
> How then, does finitude exist with autonomy? you seem to be flip flopping
> your stance in relation to your argument. What you seem to be saying is
> that within the realm of the collective values and authority of the 
> majority
> the "free agent" may choose to be autonomous.

Yes, insofar as values are collective and authority can be discounted, the 
free agent may choose to be autonomous.  But autonomy is innate in 
value-sensibility, which is the essence of man's experience.

> I think we are both calling the "vat" collective, MoQ calls it
> SOM.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
> If you call MoQ collective you are calling Essentialism collective
> based on the same grounds.

When the individual realizes his freedom to choose, he need no longer be 
constrained by the collective value system.

Thanks, Ron.

--Ham