[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Platt --

[Platt, previously]:
> Your uncreated Creator is self-contradictory and
> therefore illogical.  So it cannot be the basis of a
> rational argument.  Strike One.

[Ham]:
> What is "self-contradictory" about an uncreated creator?
> Surely it makes more sense than unrealized Quality or
> an evolving universe with nothing to create it.  (Foul ball.)

[Platt]:
> It's an assertion created by Ham that denies creation --
> like the multiculturist who asserts all views are equal
> except those that contradict his multiculturist view.
> Strike One as called.

First of all, the concept of an uncreated creator was not "created by Ham" 
but has figured prominently in philosophical thinking since the prophet 
Zoroaster (5th century BC) who taught that there is one universal and 
transcendental God, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is 
ultimately directed.  The Judeo-Christian God is also described as 
"eternal", which means having neither a beginning nor an end, hence 
"uncreated".

You might find Phillip Johnson's review of a recent book by Del Ratzsch of 
interest.  (The book is titled "A review of The Battle of the Beginnings: 
Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", and I quote from 
Johnson's review posted at http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm .)

"Unless we have a priori knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot 
rule out the possibility that supernatural action may have affected the 
history of life, and that evidence of that action may exist.  Ratzsch 
similarly rejects Richard Dawkins' argument that reference to a creator in 
science as the source of biological complexity is logically pernicious 
because it leaves the creator unexplained.  Every explanation has an 
unexplained starting point.  A theistic science starts with an uncreated 
creator; a naturalistic science starts with something like particles and 
natural laws, and goes on from there.  If living organisms -- up to and 
including human minds -- can be created by unintelligent material processes, 
then the need for a creator (at least after the ultimate beginning) is 
greatly lessened if not eliminated.  But the "if" that begins that sentence 
can be satisfied only by evidence, not by defining "science" to exclude any 
other possibility."

> From your book "Seizing the Essence, page 35. "In truth,
> nothing can be said to exist that is not capable of being
> experienced." -- emphasized by italics. Your uncreated
> Creator is transcendent, i.e., incapable of being experienced.
> Therefore, by your own assertion, it cannot exist.
> Strike Two as called.

There is nothing contradictory here.  In the context you refer to, I was 
talking about the physical universe --"our image of the world" and the 
nature of IT's
reality.  Like Bodvar, you fail to distinguish Essence from Existence which 
is defined in my Glossary as "...the pluralistic physical world that is 
localized in time and space by intellectualized experience."  Conversely, 
Essence is defined as "the ultimate, unconditional source and/or 'whatness' 
of reality,"  Essentialism is "the philosophy that Essence is the necessary 
_a priori_ source and ultimate end of all existence".

> What phenomenon in your subjective consciousness
> led you to believe in the existence of a transcendent
> (non-phenomenal) uncreated Creator? Knuckle ball
> for Strike Three.

No phenomenon but metaphysical insight and the realization that nothing 
comes from nothing (Parmenides' "Ex nihilo nihil fit").  Incidentally, I 
would have to assume that Pirsig regarded his Quality as "uncreated" 
inasmuch as it gives rise to the emerging patterns of existence.

> A biologist's "Shazam" is his exclamation at witnessing
> a miracle, the same sort of reaction your may have had
> when you created the notion of an uncreated Creator.
> It's equivalent to "Eureka" and "Oops."

Unless the biologist is referring to the "miracle of Life", as a scientist 
he/she has but one unexplained mystery to solve: How did the universe begin? 
The Big Bang was not produced by nothingness, so either the universe is 
eternal or its creator is.

[Ham]:
> Shall we try another game?

[Platt]:
> I'm game. :-) Maybe wrestling?

I suspect we're already at it.

Essentially, as always,
Ham