[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Laird Bedore]

Micah,

It sounds like you're saying that nothing rationally exists until it is 
differentiated by a human. That a rose is not a rose until a human calls 
it a rose... Sure, the _word_ "rose" or brain-construct of "rose" may 
not exist, but that doesn't stop the reality-rose from just _being_ and 
doing its whole jive with reality. It sounds like you're all wound up 
around the intellectualization of existence (rational reality) rather 
than existence (primary reality) itself. I agree with you on the 
rational reality front, but I think you're mixing up rationalized 
reality with primary reality at points, choking any clarity out of the 
conversation.

"man is the measure of all things" is a great statement. The word 
"measure" is the most important. Measuring (rationally differentiating) 
something does not affect whether that something exists in primary 
reality. It already exists (rationally undifferentiated) independent of 
our measure. The statement merely says that we are the gauge for the 
world around us, not that we are the source for the world around us. We 
do the rationalization of primary reality into subjects and objects 
(rationalized reality), but primary reality is there regardless. Very 
big difference!

Does the above distinction work for you? Help clear things up?

-Laird

Micah wrote:
> Case,
>
> You assume, try not to.
>
> Is a rose, without humans? What is, without humans?
>
> Thanks for your honest response. As I said, I cannot know for you, and I see
> that you just don't understand.
>
> Micah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:48 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters
>
>
> SA,
>
> Man is the measure of all things. Plain and simple, and unavoidable. I
> cannot know this for you, you must know it for yourself. We are reality.
> Reality doesn't define us; we define reality, not animals nor trees. Things
> are what we say they are, nothing else defines reality, or attempts to. You
> cannot remove man from reality and still have reality. You can want to, or
> pretend to, assume, or wish, or pray, or anything, but you cannot have
> reality without man. Man is the measure of all things. Know that and move
> forward.
>
> Micah
>
>
>
> Man is the measure of all things. Each individual creates a comprehensive
> representation of the external world which ceases to exist upon the
> individual's departure. If that is what you mean then it is it true. Trite
> but true.
>
> When I die my reality dies with me but to assert that all reality dies with
> me is either vanity or silliness. Certainly we define reality in some
> linguistic sense. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose smelling just as
> sweet by any other name.
>
> But so what?
>
> A change of definition will not increase the volume of my manhood nor the
> shape of soap bubbles.
>
> If by some cosmic twist of fate all men are removed, all that will change is
> reality will have lost it's sense of humor.
>
> Case
>