Craig asks:
> Which is a better explanation of why there is > something rather than nothing: > a) something appears out of nowhere/nothing > or > b) something always existed? Ham: Craig, I have been working on this dilemma for half a century and consider it the fundamental issue in philosophy. Heidegger began his 'Introduction to Philosophy' with the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" We can't escape the paradox because we are part of it, and we can't push it aside with intellectual integrity. Even if "something always existed" it has a primary source. It's not sufficient to say that energy or matter always existed. We must ask: where does it come from? Things do not create themselves. By the laws of mechanics, objects are changed by the energy or force imposed on them, and there is no energy lost in the system. In nature, organisms develop and grow according to the DNA code implanted within them. But you have to start somewhere, and my considered opinion is that existence begins as a negation of the source and is actualized as differentiated experience in space/time. When I say "primary" I don't mean first in a series of events that can be infinitely regressed. I mean the basic or fundamental source which imparts the "necessity to be". Thus, we exist not by virtue of our will or choice but by the power that makes our existence necessary. I call this power the potentiality of Essence. All sensibility, value, cognizance, being, and dynamic potential is derived from this uncreated source. So my qualified answer to your question, as well as to Krimel's 'Mu', is (b). But one must understand that "always" is meaningless outside the realm of finite experience. There is something because there is a source of something. We don't experience the source because it is not us. What we experience is the value which is our connection to the source, and because the mode of experience is reductive (finite and incremental), we objectify value into things and events arranged in time and space. Thanks for your thought-provoking question, Craig. Ron: All that being said, you simply confirm craigs b) something always existed. Since source is absolute, it always is, correct?. You hold source as an explanation, Pirsig holds Quality, only you hold that Value awareness manifests as subject/object thus source is separated from sense. Pirsig posits we are one with source, what we experience is patterned Source, from mind to matter. This concept fosters oneness and spiritual Unity. Essentialism fosters the concept of separateness and the inability of reconciling this in our experience. Talk about nihilism, it's a nihilist tease! Life has meaning! Sorry But you'll never experience it. Talk about depressing. By choosing the logic of cause and effect, what's to settle at the term "source" as "absolute"? in effect you are also casting a "mu" answer By this explanation. The eternal cause. What caused the eternal cause? The negation of nothing and otherness? What caused that? You address existence as dependant on value sensibility, how does Essentialism account for inorganic matter, evolution, and the Existence of reality and time independent of living organisms? thanks 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/
