[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Craig --


 [Previously]:
>> The concept of a creator doesn't have much explanatory power,
>> since a creator cannot create itself.
>
> [Ham]
> Your assertion is based on the cause-and-effect precept of finitude
> in space/time which, in metaphysical ontogeny, leads to the paradox
> of infinite regression.

[Craig]:
> I'm all for "the cause-and-effect precept of finitude in
> space/time", but how does it allegedly lead to the paradox
> of infinite regression?  Do you have an argument for that?

Surely you know the argument, Craig.  You expressed it above when you said 
"a creator cannot create itself."  If everything has a cause, then who or 
what caused the Creator?  The paradox, of course, is that the law of 
'cause-and-effect' applied to metaphysics would hold that there is no 
primary source because an infinite series of "causes" is required to create 
the Creator.  The idea of the first cause being an "uncreated" source seems 
to have eluded the philosophers.

The 'Big Bang' theory of creation is subject to the same regression, since 
scientists can't tell us what caused it.  There had to be energy and mass in 
some form to ignite the Bang, so it was not "the first moment of creation". 
Where did energy and mass come from?   To avoid acknowledging a creator, 
they speculate that one universe creates the next -- again, an infinite 
regression with no source.

You'll note that I don't speak of "creation" as a process in time, nor do I 
conceptualize it in that way.  The negational power of the Primary Source is 
a constant of Essence that we intellectualize as the "act" or process of 
creation.

Who created Quality?  I maintain that Pirsig had it backwards.  Absolute 
Essence (DQ) is "static"; it is the illusion of existence (SQ) that is 
"dynamic".  Hence, the title of this thread.

Essentially speaking,
Ham