Hi Drose:
> >Platt saith:
> >
> > The basic question for philosophy is: Why is there something rather
> > than nothing? I know of only three rational options, each based on an
> > unprovable premise: 1) God, 2) accident and 3) ethical requirement.
> > God is the religious premise, accident the scientific premise and
> > ethical requirement the MOQ premise.
> >
> Premise 1) God is antithetical to premise 2) accident, and premise 3)
> ethical requirement is at best begging the God question.
>
> The MoQ can exist, in fact works exceptionally well within a cosmology where
> DQ is analogous to God - your choice, but I am Catholic.
Agree. Not only the Christian God but whatever you want to call a higher
power -- All, Eternal, Infinite, Absolute, Oneness, Spirit, Divine,
Immanence, Void, Buddha, Suchness, Atman, Brahman,
Dharmadhatu, etc. In a letter to Anthony McWatt, Pirsig wrote:
"If Dynamic Quality were merely called "God" or "oneness" (scientists)
would have it shoved out of... bounds without question. But they can't
shove Quality out of bounds. Mystic or not, they can't deny it exists. They
cannot eliminate it as a meaningful term. In fact "meaningful" means
having social or intellectual quality."
> > No need to elaborate on the God premise, God as the First Cause.
> > Literature is full of that argument. The accident premise fails by self
> > contradiction: Events fall into causation patterns for no cause
> > whatsoever. The ethical requirement premise has at least something
> > going for it. Its good to be alive. A good universe creates life. To cause
> > such a universe to be, an ethical cause can be assumed. (In MOQ
> > speak, the universe prefers precondition Good.)
> >
> Nice summation, except - Ethical cause = DQ = God. If it walks like a duck,
> etc.
I separate ethical cause from God for the same reason Pirsig does.
The word "God" carries too much historical baggage. But a principle of
rightness cannot be denied by anyone who believes some things are
better than others.
>
> > At this point, all rationalizations end and infinite regress takes over.
> > Who made God? Who set accidents in motion? Who created the
> > ethical cause?
> Usually, the creator of the ethical cause is the designer of the
> metaphysics.
The question then becomes, who or what created the creator? So long
as cause is in the picture, infinite regress is assured.
> > Ultimately, the only thing that stops infinite regress and answers the
> > question, "what's true?" is one's own innate sense of Quality. It stops
> > when an individual (whether cleric, scientist or philosopher) decides
> > for himself for whatever reason (explanatory power, simplicity,
> > elegance, coherence, correspondence, consensus), that's a good truth.
> >
> Is there an objective measure? Is the answer to Pilate's question in Lk
> 18:38
> whatever you believe it is, given your own innate sense of Quality? While
> the vast majority of people live as if this were the case, I suspect that it
> is not so. It is certainly not the best answer in a Quality sense.
Why not? The MOQ provides a rational basis for determining moral questions.
But truth boils down to "paintings in gallery" don't you agree?
Great to see you back in fine form.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
