[MD] The question WHY?

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

Why?  I'd even skip implicating cause & effect, and go for Mu.  


Marsha     




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 4:18 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The question WHY?


Platt, Craig and All --

I find it curious that the prolonged and controversial thread "An Inquiry 
into Usefulness" actually turns out to be a search for the answer to: "Why 
is there anything?"   It recalls Heidegger's question, "Why are there 
essents instead of nothing?" with which he begins his "Introduction to 
Metaphysics".

Platt and Craig each make valid points, but their dialectics are not geared 
to resolving the question.
To wit: On Nov. 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Platt wrote to Craig:

> Pirsig claims the MOQ explains ultimate reality. From his annotations
> to the Copleston paper:
>
> "The MOQ, on the other hand, explains evil in evolutionary terms that
> are compatible with its theory of ultimate reality."
>
> This ties with his answer to "Why survive?
>
> "But in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the
> Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater
> levels of versatility, and freedom." (Lila, 11)
>
> So yes, I look to philosophy to provide ultimate explanations, and for
> me, Pirsig answers my questions better than any other...

[Craig]:
> Ultimate explanations are for those objectivly minded folks who believe
> such things are attainable.  Here's the distinction, Pirsig's MoQ provides
> another interpetation of experience not an ultimate explanation of 
> reality.

[Platt]:
> You seem to posit a reality beyond our recognition or understanding.

[Craig]:
 > Indeed I do.  Nothing is clearer than that this has always been the case.

[Platt]:
> If there's a reality beyond our recognition or understanding, how in the
> world will you recognize or understand it?  The examples you imagine
> are all recognizable and understandable.  As for understanding Quality,
> nothing could be easier: some things are better than others.

[Craig]:
> Why is there quality rather than none?

 [Platt]:
> Pirsig answers ... " . . . a world from which value is subtracted
> becomes unrecognizable." (Lila, 9)

[Craig]:
> This answers the question "How do we know there is quality/value".
> It doesn't answer the question "Why is there?

Why IS there, indeed?  This is the most fundamental question of philosophy. 
But to answer it, we must take our cue from experience itself.  This 
presupposes both a questioner and a referent to be questioned: i.e., 
Existence.  Right at the start we confront a dualism.  But our question 
would be meaningness without the predicate "is" [latin, 'esse'].  No matter 
how we interpret 'esse' -- as Source, Being, Existence, God, Mind, or Value,

for example -- it alludes to that which IS, which is why 'esse' is 
ESSENTIAL, not only for the proposition "something is" but for the source or

cause of that essent, as well.

This 'esse' or Essence is Ultimate Reality, that is to say, 'IS-ness" in its

absolute sense.  Because we are obliged to seek an answer in experience, we 
don't find it.  What we find instead are "things" and "events" -- finite 
phenomena that are separated (negated) out of absolute Essence and which we 
know only valuistically.  But the fact that we know ANYTHING is predicated 
on the Essence from which this "knowing" is derived.

Hence, the short answer to your question "Why?" is: Because Essence is 
fundamental.
Is any other explanation really necessary?

Respectfully submitted,
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/