[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

[Case]
When I die my definition of reality will die with me. It is hard to do but I
try not to confuse MY definition of reality with reality itself. I know
nothing about reality directly all I know is my definition of it. My
definition is based on my experience and my recollection of past experience.
But my experience is limited and my recollection is faulty. I suspect I can
be accused of being very much a Kantian in this because I do assume that I
have experiences OF something and there are "things in themselves". This is
an assumption, there is no absolute proof I can offer of it but I do accept
this as a matter of faith. So yes, that is my assumption.

But just as a sidetrack because this reminds of something that has bothered
me for sometime. Pirsig is said to have rejected Kant. But the only actual
reason I can find for saying that is when he says Kant's ethics are ugly.
Which seems a kind of "Yo' Mama" dismissal. Also his explanation of Kant,
using the example of an a priori motorcycle has always bothered me. I
understand a priori concepts to be hardwiring. That is space, time substance
etc. are intrinsic to the way we think. As someone I read described it, this
is how we "format" reality. Kant was avoiding Hume's problems and the
problems of pure empiricism by saying that our definition of reality is a
function of how the mysterious "things in themselves" register and are
recorded by us.

[L]:  
Dear Case,

Pirsig contra Kant is a quality topic.  Foremost, I think it has to do with the perception
that Kant's metaphysics create an absolute dichotomy between mind and world as well as 
cast doubt on the possibility of a rationally based morality.  I don't have time to elaborate 
at present.  Hopefully others will.

Cheers,
Laramie