[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Micah]

Laird,

I am saying neither is primary, they are simultaneous, which is what I
believe Pirsig is stating in Zen. Quality is the fabric of reality with
subject and object woven into that fabric.

"Man is the measure of all things" is a great statement. Man is reality and
reality is man (see above), how they operate together is the subject of
Lila, I believe.

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Laird Bedore
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:46 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters


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
>

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/