[MD] Mystics and Brains

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt -- 

> Do I detect a possible movement in the direction of accepting
> the MOQ?  By pursuing the value connection in explaining the
> reason why there is something rather than nothing -- the
> philosopher's Gordian Knot -- you appear on the brink of a
> breakthrough.

No breakthrough in my thinking, Platt.  Just the morale booster that comes
from following someone else's train of thought and envisioning the
possibilities. Actually, I've always accepted Pirsig's premise that Value is
the primary empirical (i.e., sensed) reality, and that it is sensed
pre-intellectually.  But this is only part of the story, as I've said
before.  If everything that exists is the effect of a cause, existence and
its perceived value must have a cause, unless we assume that their being is
a necessary truth.  While he doesn't explicitly say so, Pirsig in effect
makes Quality a necessary truth, his non-contingent reality.  I cannot
accept Quality or Value as the primary, independent source.  For me the
appearance of both being and value requires a primary cause which is a
necessary truth.  Simply stated, there is a reason for existence that is not
to be found in its experience.

As a kid I grew up asking why? about everything I experienced, until I
learned that most of the things I was questioning were not important enough
to warrant the  complicated reasons I was offered.

But I've always been intrigued by Heidegger's question, also asked by
Leibniz: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  Surely this is the
most fundamental of all questions -- certainly more significant for mankind
than "Is there a God?" for example.  Indeed, it's the very starting point
for metaphysics.  Yet, because so few want to go there, neither Science nor
Philosophy has seriously addressed it.  When it comes to reality, scientists
are trained to investigate 'what' it is and 'how' it works, while
philosophers try to divine the truths that can be learned from it.  At some
undefined level between these two intellectual pursuits is a small voice
asking 'why?'  And we are introduced to reason.

> Be that as it may, I think many of us will be interested in
> how your dialog with Witherall transpires. I know I will be.

I shall be happy to oblige, Platt.  Meantime, I'm working on getting a bio
from the chap in time for next week's Values column.  He tells me he's just
moved, and "...due to some stupidity the electricity hasn't been connected,
and I don't have internet access at home anyway."  It looks like his
introduction to IT is destined to be as problematic as his career in
philosophy ;-).

Cheers and regards,
Ham