[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --



> In the past, I've asked you for your argument, but you responded
> with a list of reputable philosophers and a linage of thought.  I
> thought this the perfect opportunity to challenge your eluded to
> argument.  It has problems.  That 'A causal chain cannot be of
> infinite length.' is what you think, not what you know.  So no, \
> your further explanation does not make your assumption of a
> "primary source" more compelling.  ...Your "Primary" and
> "purpose" is stating too much.  I find no compelling reason to
> adopt your assumptions.

Perhaps my explanation is lacking something that appeals personally to you, 
but what you choose to believe is your decision to make, based on your 
value-sensibility.  All metaphysical explanations are by nature problematic, 
and they can only be offered as hypotheses.  The human brain is not designed 
to experience the Essence of reality directly; instead we only sense its 
Value in our experience of differentiated existence.

That said, I don't think you can deny that a causal chain extended 
infinitely is an oxymoron.  If there is no first cause, it isn't a "causal 
chain."  The most you can say is that the contingencies of existence are an 
unending series of events, an infinite continuum without cause.  As you may 
have noted from Wikipedia's Aquinas paragraph, "contingent beings are 
insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings."  Something 
cannot come from nothing.  Logically, there must be something beyond 
existential being to support this multiplistic universe, whether you regard 
it as the primary source or the first "cause".

> To call those who do not agree with your assumptions
> concerning the source and purpose of Reality nihilists
> is nonsense.

I apologize if this appellation offends you.  For me, the compulsive 
rejection of any metaphysical concept on the ground that it is 
"theologically motivated" or "supernatural hype" is a form of nihilism.  I 
understand that Value is recognized by the MoQ community (albeit not as 
proprietary sensibility), and that there is an attempt here to envision 
physical reality metaphorically as a hierarchy of levels and patterns. 
While this may be viewed as idealistic thinking, it falls short of 
acknowledging -- in fact, it denies --that there is a transcendent reality 
with meaning and purpose for the individual.

Your comments are always appreciated, Marsha.

Best wishes,
Ham