[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Micah]

Case,

You say "I know
nothing about reality directly all I know is my definition of it."

How do you know that? Since you have no direct knowledge of reality. What
are you basing your statement on?

Since you can have no direct knowledge of reality, how can you know what it
isn't?

Yes, you are using your senses to negate your senses, just like Kant and
just as contradictory.

Either your senses are your direct contact to reality (they are) or they're
not. If they are not, you should not have any opinions on anything because
that would require the use of your senses, and you have admitted they not to
be trusted, therefore you are obviously babbling.

Micah



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:02 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters


[Micah]
I meant that you assume reality exists without humans. Certainly reality
will end when you die (how would you know otherwise?) and since you have
known people to die, yet reality continued for the living - you assume that
it will continue without any people. Is that your assumption?

[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.

I have found references to the synthetic a priori which may be what Pirsig
is talking about with the a priori motorcycle but if anyone can elaborate I
would find it helpful. Also where does Pirsig give a reason for abandoning
Kant beyond saying that he is ugly?

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/