[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Sun Nov 26 19:54:25 PST 2006

Case,

Your posts never cease to amuse me.

Micah

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:18 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Micah,

It took you four posts but you finally answered my question. I was trying to
figure out whether you actually knew anything at all about Kant or had even
a rudimentary grasp of issues related to sensation and perception.

As simple, "No" would have been sufficient.

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Micah
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:54 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Case,

Of course you trust your senses completely, how else would you be able to
doubt them?

"Things in themselves" as Kant is fond of saying, and he asserts we cannot
know, implies use of your senses to deny your senses - as you try to do, but
as we know you must trust your senses to distrust them. The real question
is - why do you deny  your senses? What's in it for you?

You are playing silly games. You say "But I do not expect them [senses] to
provide me with absolute
certainty." Apparently you know what absolute certainty is, but also deny
that, or somehow know that your senses do not provide it - how would you
come to this conclusion without the certainty of your senses? You
continually contradict yourself. You need to come to your senses.

Micah

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:28 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Sp

[Micah]
So, do you trust your senses? You say you know reality through your network
of sensory nerves, which implies that you trust your senses. Then you say
you cannot trust your senses to know reality, which of course requires the
use of your senses to decide that you cannot trust your senses. Which is it.

[Case]
I do have senses. My level of trust in them is a function of my familiarity
with them. I have learned to measure twice and cut once, to look before I
leap and that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might
actually be a duck. But they have fooled me in the past and I expect they
will do so again. The women always look better at closing time.

You work with what you have. As far as I am concerned they get a qualified:
so far so good. But I do not expect them to provide me with absolute
certainty.

You seem to be saying that I either must trust them absolutely or throw them
out. "Which is it?" So which is it for you? Do you find your self jumping
into shallow water and having lots of coyote ugly mornings or do you drive
with your eyes closed?

[Micah]
Kant does the same - uses his senses to deny his senses can perceive
reality.

[Case]
I am on a serious fishing expedition for thoughts on Kant. Could you cite
passage where he says this? Or something in Pirsig or anything beyond your
bald assertion. If I am leery of my own perceptions I don't trust yours at
all.

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/