[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ron Kulp]

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