[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 13 Nov 2009 at 0:48, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:

> [Craig, previously] 
> > Why is there quality rather than none? 
> 
> [Platt] 
> > Pirsig answers ...  " . . . a world from 
> > which value is subtracted becomes unrecognizable." (Lila, 9) 
> 
> This answers the question "How do we know there is quality/value". 
> 
> It doesn't answer the question "Why is there?" 

Actually it answers the question "Why?" by saying without value we 
wouldn't be here to recognize reality much less ask "Why?".   

> Perhaps we need to distinguish 2 senses of "ultimate explanation". 
> 
> In the strong sense an  "ultimate explanation" would explain 
> everything:  there would be no mysteries or uncertainties. 
> In the weak sense an  "ultimate explanation" would explain 
> everything that can be explained. 
> 
> I don't think an ultimate explanation in the strong sense is possible & 
> without it, I don't think we could ever know we had an 
> "ultimate explanation" in the weak sense. 
> The MoQ might be a FUNDAMENTAL explantion. 
> I.e., an explanation that no other explanation can be more 
> fundamental than.  But can we know this or only keep 
> challenging it.     

You seem to posit a reality beyond our recognition or understanding. 
What do you imagine such a reality would be like? Something from 
movies like the Matrix perhaps?

Platt