Ian --
> Ham, I agree with the point of Craig's questions and > with Krim's answer. And that is not nihilist at all. > It's realist, practical, pragmatic...choose a better word if you like. Well, insofar as 'Mu' is an expression of non-concern with philosophy, I suppose one could call it a pragmatic response to a valid philosophical question. I call it a copout. > It's "the hole in my metaphysics". First cause - the thing that > comes before the first thing you can explain. > It can only ever be a theory (as you yourself keep saying). > So why make some absolute fight to the death issue out of it. > It can only ever be a matter of convenience. Causation is the hole in everybody's metaphysics. But if a theory offers an answer to the mystery of creation, it can be far more than "a matter of convenience". For intellectuals in a philosophy forum, you people seem to have a phobia against new ideas, even when they might possibly strengthen the MoQ by giving it a proper metaphysical foundation. > If pushed - I'm for the "always existed" answer - > no beginnings, no ends idea, which makes "causation" > a pretty weird concept to deal with. Which is why "Mu" > is just as good an answer. It makes the point, > you're asking the wrong question, and formulating the > wrong kind of answer if you are looking for a fundamentally > definite cause, pre-existing thing - beyond a convenient > metaphor, to avoid wasting time on further debate. Causation is, in fact, so weird a concept that Pirsig has avoided it, I believe to the detriment of his philosophical thesis. Yet, he doesn't hesitate to divide reality into four discrete levels and posit Quality as its nature. Why is introducing causation to this thesis "asking the wrong question"? I should think a philosopher would expect his readers to ask where Quality comes from, rather than have to assume "it's just there" and grows like Topsy. Actually, causation (like probability and numeration) is a relational term that works well for biological evolution and chemical or mechanical processes, but not for the primary differentiation. I generally avoid the word because of its serial connotation, (eg., A causes B causes C, etc.). But what's really weird to me is for an author to title his philosophy the Metaphysics of Quality, only to reject metaphysics in his exposition. Indeed, it astonishes me that no one seems to have questioned this curious anomaly. > Allah Akhbar. God is good (enough !) said the atheist. If God is good enough for an atheist who is without belief, imagine the value of God to a believer! I know you mean well, Ian; but I don't think your complaint is realistic in this context. 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/
