[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

I believe what you write is only one way to look at it.

Yes, there is continuity as we see through the lens
of time.  No doubt about it, I am onboard with that.  

My observations of the universe is that the striking 
aspect of it, is the presence of circular motion.  This 
circular motion is also seen as a wave since the same
trigonometry applies.  A wave goes through a cycle of
crest and trough.  A standing wave has
no beginning and no end.  If one were to imagine
time as an endless cycle it would have no beginning or 
end, and the concept of infinity would become much
more manageable.

If one applies logic, one cannot go endlessly back
in time, or else it would be impossible for this present
time to ever arrive (kind of a Zeno paradox).  Physicists
claim (to get out of this)  that time began at
a big bang.  I'm not sure which is easier to accept, that
time just began or that time is circular.

I'm not sure if I accept the notion that everything has a
beginning, even with regard to our self-awareness.  But 
that is a topic for another forum.   It seems that Williams' analogy
about the universe being a self contained set, also spells
a dilemma for philosophy.  This analogy is an attempt
to get outside that set, which then results in an ever
increasing number of sets, that one has to get out of.
In fact getting beyond these sets is a set.

The trouble with the evolutionary lens, is that it is one-sided.
Evolution proposes  growth through change (perhaps directional),
on an unchanging backdrop.  With our short lives this is imaginable since
we do not experience the ever changing non-biological universe.
However, that backdrop is forever changing.  Since it appears
that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity) are also "evolving", and
indeed time is also changing.  Biology changes in time to the changes 
of the planet, which changes in time to the changing forces, which change
in time to time.  All this change is simply an endless dance, and what
a waltz it is.

This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see.  Once one
becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea 
of a beginning kind of loses its importance.  Rather than directional
evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless 
transformation.

Thanks for introducing me to Sehnucht.  I will read more on that. 

Cheers,

Willblake2


On Aug 3, 2009, at 11:07:42 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Date:   August 3, 2009 11:07:42 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Greetings, Will --



> The question of what came before the universe can only be
> applied to a universe as seen through an evolutionary lens.
> Current data supports a static universe much more than a
> universe that was created through a big bang. So in other words,
> nothing came before the universe, the universe has always been.

The universe as seen through an evolutionary lens is the only universe there 
is. Its existence depends on our ability to see (i.e., experience and 
interpret) it. "Current data" has no more significance than "past data". 
It's all experience that has been structured by our intellect and its 
acquired precepts.

> The universe makes much more sense as static, yet ever changing.
> In fact why rely on a source for anything? It just is.

All created things have a beginning. Why should the universe we live in be 
the single exception to this precept? To conclude that the universe is 
eternally "static, yet ever-changing", just because we can't account for its 
origin, makes no more sense than saying that my mind is eternal for the same 
reason. Of what use is a philosophy that posits subjects and objects as 
"patterns of Quality" if Quality has no source? You might just as well 
accept subjects and objects for what they are.

When you deny the primary source of existence, you make philosophy a 
meaningless word game. Without a primary source all philosophy is dead in 
the water.

Back to you, Will,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:50:41 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Date: July 30, 2009 12:50:41 PM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Platt, Marsha, and all art lovers --


While searching the net for references to "Uncreated Source" by authors
other than myself, I came across a fascinating essay called "Aesthetic
Arguments for the Existence of God" by Peter Williams. Quoting St.
Augustine, J.P. Moreland, C.S. Lewis, and others, he not only treats
aesthetics much as Pirsig treats Quality, which will please most of you, he
argues convincingly that the love of beauty is both "epistemological" and
"ontological" evidence of a primary aesthetic source, which is sure to
please the artists in this group.

Before quoting Williams, I'd also like to present an argument to the
"cause-and-effect" logicians and number-crunchers here who deny a primary
source on the ground that it leads to an infinite regression of causes. I
consider it important, because Pirsig does not really address the primary
source issue in his metaphysics. Although I wish I could take credit for
it, I've copied it from the Evolution vs. Creation (EvC) Forum:

"Asking 'what came before the Universe' is a nonsense question because it
attempts to use the parameters of the Universe to apply to things outside of
the Universe. To continue the analogy, within the number set there are only
numbers, no letters, and the question asks specifically for a number - in
the question of a 'cause' for the Universe, you're asking for an event in a
time coordinate that doesn't exist.

"It's true that existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive,
either/or, black/white binary descriptors. But you have to ask the right
question to get the right answer. The question 'what caused the Universe'
is the wrong question, because it requires things like 'events' and 'time'
that don't necessarily apply in the same way 'outside' of our Universe.

"What number comes before 0 in the number set?

"That question doesn't make sense. You could say that no number exists
before 0 in the number set.

"Does anything outside of the number set exist?

"Yes. There's an A."

Okay, folks. The following excerpts from Williams' essay are especially for
Platt and Marsha (and maybe even Bodvar). Although none of us is arguing
for theism, it will be interesting to get your reactions vis-a-vis Pirsig's
Quality thesis.

"The thought is that, since naturalistic explanations of the world give no a
priori reason to expect beauty to arise in either the biological or
non-biological realm, a theistic explanation, which can invoke teleology to
explain this fact, gains a measure of credibility.

"This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning. . .
that the original `idea' is not to be found in this sphere, where it is
shown to be subject to change. . . And so they saw that there must be some
being in which the original form resides, unchangeable, and therefore
incomparable. And they rightly believed that it is there that the origin of
things is to be found, in the uncreated, which is the source of all
creation.

"This same search for that transcendent something sensed within or through
aesthetic experience was a golden-thread running through the life of C.S.
Lewis:

'If a man diligently followed this desire, pursuing the false objects until
their falsity appeared and then resolutely abandoning them, he must come at
last to the clear knowledge that the human soul was made to enjoy some
object that is never fully given. . . in our present mode of. . .
experience. This desire was. . . as the seige Perilous in Arthur's castle -
the chair in which only one could sit. And if nature makes nothing in vain,
the One who can sit in this chair must exist.'

As a literary scholar, Lewis picked up on the Romantic term Sehnucht to
describe a family of emotional responses to the world (melancholy, wonder,
yearning, etc.) which are linked by a sense of displacement or alienation
from the object of desire. `Sehnucht', writes Corbin Scott Carnell, `may be
said to represent just as much a basic theme in literature as love.' The
closest English translation for Sehnucht is probably `nostalgic longing',
and it arises when experience of something within the world awakens a desire
for something beyond what the natural world can offer as a corresponding
object of desire. Sehnucht therefore directs our attention towards the
transcendent, that which `goes beyond' our present experience. The power of
fairy-tales lie in their ability to transport us into a world transparently
imbued with Sehnucht. Peter Kreeft considers music, noting how the ancients
attributed it to gods, as perhaps the most powerful producer of Sehnucht.
However, Lewis suggests that:

"This Sehnucht points, then, towards the existence of a supernatural
happiness. Is there truly any reason to suppose that reality offers
satisfaction to this desire? Being hungry doesn't prove that we will get
fed. True; but such a criticism misses the point. A man's hunger does not
prove that he will get any food; he might die of starvation. But surely
hunger proves that a man comes from a race which needs to eat and inhabits a
world where edible substances exist: `In the same way,' says Lewis, `though
I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I
shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists
and that some men will.' "

The complete essay can be found at
http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml..

Happy reading!

--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/