[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Laird Bedore]

Micah,

Sorry to respond to myself, but I just thought of a question which helps 
illuminate this exercise:

Can reality exist beyond the scope of human understanding?

Answering No implies that existence is as finite and relative as each 
person's current understanding, leaving no room for growth or further 
learning. This makes the efforts of what we're doing here, as well as 
all of philosophy, completely useless.

Answering Yes implies that human intellect is not the source of all 
things, and there is a primary reality beyond human understanding 
(rational reality). I, for one, think this is self-evident through what 
we call experience.

Just through the act of considering the question, I think that Yes is 
the only possible answer.

-Laird

Laird Bedore wrote:
> 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
>>   
>>