OK Ham, I'll try to answer, But first you need to apologise for the "you people" prejudiced remark.
First Mu is NOT an expression of non-concern. Far from it, it is an expression of very considered concern. It says, not only is it difficult to answer your question (as a forced choice), and I'd prefer not to mislead you by answering it the way you phrased it, I prefer to say you are asking the wrong question. It starts a realconversation .... Secondly, I'm not saying "causation" is the wrong question, I am saying causation is sufficiently weird to require a serious conversation rather than a simple closed question. I am however saying "first-cause" is a "wrong question". If as you suggest when I say "it's always existed" - the natural question is but where did "it" come from - the you are falling into this trap of looking for the simple Q&A about first cause - the cause before the one we just mentioned (it). As I say the alternative answer the question before the current one is "a turtle" - it's turtles all the way down. It / they have always existed is the only sane / pragmatic answer - the one any theolgian would use if asked - so where did your god come from ? Believing in god (God that is) does not do away with this question - it just provides the Mu answer. It has always existed, so don't ask me again, where it came from. Ian On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
