[MD] The question WHY?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt -- 

> Some contributors don't see much point in trying to answer Why
> questions. But, I agree with you that "Why is there?" is the most
> fundamental question of philosophy.

[Ham, previously]:
> This presupposes both a questioner and a referent to be questioned:
> i.e., Existence.  Right at the start we confront a dualism.

[Platt]:
> Yes. In one sense, a dualism. But, in another (broader) sense a unity
>  -- experience -- which unites the questioner with the referrent to be
> questioned, like a coin unites heads and tails. .
>
> I argue that what is essential is not "esse" but EXPERIENCE,  both
> for the proposition "something" and the source of "something" as well.

Experience is "essential" for being aware, but it cannot be the ultimate 
reality.  Here's my argument.

First of all, experience requires a self-aware individual with sensory 
capability.  Individuals are finite organisms with limited power who are 
subject to birth and death in a time continuum.  So their experience is 
necessarily relative and conditional -- not the sort of sensibility one 
would categorize as "fundamental" or "ultimate".  Also, as you know, I do 
not subscribe to the theory that experience is "absolute" or intrinsic to 
the universe.  In fact, it's my belief that experience "creates" 
(actualizes) the universe from Value.  And, inasmuch as Pirsig has equated 
Quality with Value, I'm more inclined to regard DQ as the essence of 
existence rather than experience.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

[Platt]:
> Substitute "experience" for "the Essence" in the last sentence.

Again, existential knowledge is derived from experience.  But experience is 
derived from the Value of Essence.  Ultimate reality transcends the created 
world of appearances.  The concept of a primary source approximates man's 
idea of God, except that it is not a "Supreme Being" or a divine authority 
that rules over mankind.  Essence is the name I have given to the uncreated 
source because it is fundamentally essential (meaning "necessary") as well 
as primary to all experienced otherness.

[Platt]:
> And again, change "Because Essence is fundamental" to "Because
> experience is fundamental.

Sorry, Platt.  Anything that is dependent cannot be fundamental.  Experience 
is dependent on individual awareness, the appearance of being, and the 
neuro-sensory apparatus of a cognizant creature.

> According to Pirsig, "The MOQ says experience is reality. It doesn´t
> need a system of relations to be real."

Experience is man's reality.  The system of relations (or Pirsig's Quality 
hierarchy) is how he intellectualizes it.

> While I know you don't agree, at least you can see that another
> philosopher has addressed the fundamental question and has built a
> metaphysics around his answer. Between you two titans, I choose
> Pirsig for reasons I've given many times in our conversations before.
>
> But, I could be wrong. And I suspect others answering the fundamental
> question could be, too.

Indeed, we could all be wrong.  But what you believe is your choice as a 
free agent.

Happy Thankgiving to you and yours, too, Platt.

--Ham.