Hi Ham, et al (Chris, DM ... and ...)
Contentious point first .... mostly agreement.
I did "quote" you as saying metaphysics is "only a theory". which I
agree was a paraphrase of what you actually said (but you did use the
word only). Anyway you repeat it again. You say again "I said that
only a theory can answer the question of the primary cause.
Metaphysics is theoretically formulated, but it can also be
a belief system.... "
Agreed again ... primary / first cause can only ever be the realm of
theory ... a metaphysics is just such a theoretical basis ... for a
belief system. It is never any kind of empirical reality. (I am saying
why should anyone be the least surprised by that, lose one second of
sleep over it, once they've come to terms with the awesome nature of
the cosmos ?)
As you go on to say, MoQ is just like any other metaphysics in having
a hole that needs plugging - around "first cause". No better or worse
than can be expected for ANY metaphysics. So the only question (worth
debating) is, is it any good as a metaphysics - does it do anything
useful, valuable ? I think it does.
You may say plugging my loophole is a "logical necessity" - I say it's
a logical convenience, but what you plug it with is utterly irrelevant
and forever inexplicable - turtles will do, even essence if you
prefer, god is a popular choice. It has no effect on how good the
metaphysics itself is, in explaining / predicting how the real world
works. (I could talk more about this, if anyone was listening. In many
ways. it is actually "better" if the plug in the hole, is something
fantastic, beyond any attempt at real world explanation - that's why I
have a lot of time for enlightened theologians - but not religious
fundamentalists.)
Finally ... I was using "contingent" as an adjective in the scientific
sense. (not as "a contingent" of something). ie contingent - meaning
open to revision in the light of better evidence / arguments/ offer.
BTW "nothing comes from nothing" is just a slogan - tautology at best
- carries no weight in an argument.
Ian
On 3/3/08, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ian and DM (Chris mentioned) --
>
>
> [Ham said to David]:
> > Humans can imagine lots of things, but imagination has
> > no claim on logic, and conjuring up multi-universes violates
> > Occam's razor without resolving the problem of creation.
>
> [Ian]:
> > (1) Reality has no monopoly on logic either.
> > And
> > (2) Multiverses do not "violate" Occam.
> > God does not violate Occam any less.
> > (Occam is a rule of thumb, not a fundamental "law" anyway.)
> >
> > "first cause" (creation, if you prefer) is an unresolved
> > metaphysical loophole everywhere. I don't find that a
> > surprising issue. My suspicion is there probably always
> > will be this "hole" in any empirical (experience = reality)
> > sense. Even a near-perfect metaphysics would be
> > contingent at this point.
>
> A "contingent" of what? If God is your "first cause", then that is your
> "metaphysical loophole", although what you call a "loophole" I call a
> logical necessity. Since nothing comes from nothing, the concept of a
> supra-natural source is the missing link in our understanding of reality.
> The MoQ avoids a first cause, considering reality (or the experience of it)
> as the evolving physical universe. Pirsig's metaphysics is incomplete with
> this omission.
>
> Incidentally, I did not say (as you reported to Chris) that metaphysics was
> "only a theory". I said that only a theory can answer the question of the
> primary cause. Metaphysics is theoretically formulated, but it can also be
> a belief system, just as the MoQ has apparently become.
>
> [Ian]:
> > To my mind, the core problem, is that in order to
> > "differentiate" some (any) "significant difference"
> > first has to exist.
>
> Exactly. And that's where metaphysics comes in. Neither experience nor
> empirical science can explain how difference (diversity and relations) is
> derived from an undifferentiated primary source. But a well developed
> metaphysical thesis can.
>
> In my exploration of philosophy, I've found four plausible concepts of the
> "fundamental stuff" of reality: Beingness, Consciousness, Value, and
> Essence. In my view, the first three are derivational contingencies that
> presuppose a prior source. Only Essence ("is-ness") can logically encompass
> all three as an absolute unity. Difference--consciousness of value as
> objectivized value--can be explained as the negation or "reduction" of this
> primary unity. This is what I have attempted to do in my Philosophy of
> Essence.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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/
>
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/
