Ian,
Superb!
SA
Ian:
> 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/
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
