It's been a long trip, but I think we've ended where I worried we would, with the One Objective Morality that all our personal moralities were imperfect reflections of.

We just aren't "dereferencing to the same unverbalizable abstract computation", and I think recognizing this is the first step towards making cooperative progress toward fulfilling all our individual 2place morality functions.

From within me, my 2place morality function naturally feels like a 1place morality function – actions feel “just wrong”, etc.

But despite that feeling, being a conceptual creature, and having conceptualized your function , and his function, and her function, and seeing that I need a 2place function to describe them all, I can describe my own function as one of those 2place functions as well, even though it feels like a 1place function to me.

So far, I think we'd be on the same page.

But instead of introducing some unspecified abstract ideal function, I'd emphasize the reality of our different 2place functions. Your morality is not mine, exactly, and if I want to convince you, I need to do it based on your 2place morality function. In such a discussion, the goal is a sharing of information - we try to communicate our own 2place functions to each other, and give the other person the opportunity to show each other how we can better fulfill them. You show me how I could better fulfill mine, and I show you how you could better fulfill yours.

Compare the potential for that kind of conversation to make our 2place functions individually and mutually more consistent with the discussions where both participants hypothesize a perfect ideal abstract truth, and are enraged and befuddled that the other guy "just doesn't get it".

Which kind of discussion do you think is more likely to increase individual and mutual coherence? Even if there were a perfect abstract ideal waiting to be discovered, wouldn't the first kind of discussion be the way to find it?