[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Laird Bedore]

> [Ham]
> Greetings Laird, Hi Micah  --
>
> Laird is an unusual name.  It's Scottish, isn't it?
>
>   
[Laird]
Yep! First name Scottish, last name an American bastardization of a 
French name (Bedard). Neither the German or the Irish (Holden, 
actually!) make it to my namesake.

> [Ham]
> I saw your post to Micah today, and was impressed with the honesty and
> clarity of your thought.  You said:
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> I've tried for quite some time to wrap my head around
>> various philosophical ideas of reality not-existing without
>> man, and I don't know what it is, but I just can't dig it.
>> I see man as a thoroughly cool happenstance in cosmo-
>> history, but not much more. Swell, we can intellectualize
>> and carve up ideas! We're probably not the first, last,
>> or only creatures capable of this. On the grand scale,
>> I think humans are exceptionally un-special.
>>     
> [Ham]
> I think Micah was a bit brash in saying "I cannot know for you, and I see
> that you just don't understand."  On the contrary, you seem to understand
> very well, but bolt at the idea that physical reality is literally created
> by the intellect.  I must admit to having the same reaction, until I
> realized that no other cosmological scheme makes sense in a philosophy that
> is based on a non-physical principle.  And Quality in the MoQ is
> non-physical.
>
>   
[Laird]
Indeed, I run like the wind! I just can't get rid of the feeling that 
something isn't right with physical reality (actualized, not 
rationalized) being created by intellect.
>> [Laird]
>> I see philosophy as a means to understand the reality
>> we're partaking in, including the past before we humans
>> came into being. The statement "reality cannot exist
>> without man, and man cannot exist without reality"
>> translates in my head to anthropocentrism, which I see
>> consistently leading to relativism. I want to think there's
>> another way of looking at this! Do you see it another way?
>>     
> [Ham]
> Yes, there is another way of looking at this (which I'll get to in a
> minute); but first I need to point out something you've missed in your
> reprisal of Micah's ontology.
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> At least part of your confusion, as I see it (Micah may not agree with me),
> is a consequence of viewing Existence as both "rational reality" and
> "primary reality".  You correctly characterize the former as an
> "intellectualization".  But Primary Reality is the fundamental or
> "substantive" source of existence which logically cannot be either
> "rational" or an intellectualization.
>
>   
[Laird]
I think that's one thing I'm quite good at not confusing. When I said 
"intellectualization of existence (rational reality)", I was not 
speaking of Existence, I was speaking of intellectualization.

I see Existence (capital E) as the whole of SQ, actualized by DQ (the 
Source). Constantly reactualized and updated and changing, thanks to 
non-physical DQ. This relationship of DQ actualizing SQ is the source of 
"time" as we know it. With Existence characterized this way ("just the 
moon"), I see it as being VERY different from rational reality ("finger 
pointing at the moon"). I think this definition of Existence (capital) 
allows for our understanding of existence (rational) to more readily 
treat light, ideas and other not-quite-physicals as existents. I think 
this brings physical-vs-nonphysical fields like neurology and psychology 
much, much closer to agreement.


> What is Primary Reality, then?  Pirsig says "Quality is the primary
> empirical reality of the world"; but existence is only the experience of a
> differentiated physical reality, not its substantive source.  What we
> experience is the intellectualized "appearance" of beingness -- things and
> events in flux.  Existence cannot be primary, and neither can the intellect
> which constructs it.  Both presuppose a primordial "first cause" which
> Pirsig doesn't include in his cosmology.
>
>   
[Laird]
I'd agree that rational existence is only the experience (again, 
intellectual) of a differentiated physical reality. I don't view 
Existence (capital E) as primary because I think it's a bad description. 
DQ, Essence, is "primary", but Existence is not secondary - without 
Existence, DQ would have nothing to work with and would ultimately 
degrade into true, pure, absolute nothing. A sort of strange codependent 
monism? Kind of an oxymoron, but I think that's just SOM talking.


> [Ham]
> It is my theory that the ultimate Reality is uncreated, immutable and
> undivided.  I define it as the absolute Not-Other (Cusa's term), and I call
> it Essence.  All finite otherness exists relative to Essence, but nothing
> that exists is an "other" to Essence.
>
>   
[Laird]
I think our ideas are compatible. Existence (capital) just adds a bit 
that resolves my "feeling of something wrong" - my feeling that 
Existence can exist (I need a better word!) without rationalization ever 
occuring in the universe. I'm big on maintaining the possibility of the 
universe even if/when rational beings didn't exist. An anthropocentric 
viewpoint mandates an assumption that the universe must always contain 
something doing the rationalizing, and I just don't think that works. 
Thus my need to bridge the gap!


> [Ham]
> Now let's return to your comment that "the statement 'reality cannot exist
> without man, and man cannot exist without reality' translates ...to
> anthropocentrism, which I see consistently leading to relativism."  Physical
> reality can be [is] anthropocentric, which indeed does make for a totally
> relativistic existence.  However, if you consider Primary Reality not as an
> "existent" but as the Absolute Source [Essence], you will no longer have to
> struggle so hard to "dig it".  You may even come to see relativity as what
> makes individual freedom possible in an anthropcentric universe.
>
>   
[Laird]
I tend to agree with the concept of Absolute Source, but I've been 
troubled with bridging the gap between that Source and non-rationalized 
existents. I think this discussion has helped me put words to my 
attempts to bridge that gap. I'm interested in the idea of relativity, 
but in a way that can cover both an anthropocentric and 
non-anthropocentric worldview. That one will definitely need more thought!


> [Ham]
> I hope I've "shown you another way" and not just added to your confusion.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity, Laird, and a hearty welcome to the forum!
>   
[Laird]
This has been fantastically helpful, both in understanding your 
viewpoint and clarifying mine. Much thanks, Ham!

-Laird