[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[ian glendinning]

Ham, point of order ... you said I said
Ian said:
> I don't know if monkeys have mental concepts or not, but I
> assume that they do as they are so similar to humans.

Where did I say that ?
Doesn't sound like my kinda words.

I did say somewhere else there was "evidence" that higher primates use
mental concepts .... clearly that evidence is always from experienced
behaviour of some sort. And yes ... lots of people have been inside
"monkey's" heads, and I've read their books ... we can still only
infer from evidence, whatever.

Conceptualisation seems to create ontologies, without it the world is
pre-ontological, even non-ontological (aontic).

Not guilty.
Ian

On 10/10/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings Micah [Ian mentioned] --
>
>
> > "Man is the measure of all things" is a quote from Pirsig in Zen,
> > and is the genesis of his philosophy from which Lila grows.
>
> It won't surprise Ian that I totally agree with you.  The originator of this
> maxim was not Pirsig or the Zen masters but the Greek philosopher Protagoras
> [c.481-420 BC] who was numbered among the sophists by Plato.  The full
> quotation is:
>
> "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and
> of things which are not, that they are not"
>
> While the phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and is open
> to interpretation, Wikipedia says: "Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras,
> and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to
> objective and transcendent realities and values."
>
> Ian said:
> > I don't know if monkeys have mental concepts or not, but I
> > assume that they do as they are so similar to humans.
>
> Such statements reveal the major error in the MoQ ontology.  By "so similar"
> Ian can only be referring to behavior, since he can't get into the monkey's
> head.  The same principle applies to the attraction of electrons to protons,
> or the reaction of an amoeba to a corrosive chemical.  Behavior does not
> equate to Awareness or Experience.  Awareness is proprietary to the being
> (that is) aware -- the Self.  Pirsig simply cannot accept that fundamental
> principle.  Were he to acknowledge conscious awareness as proprietary to the
> self, it would diminish his concept of Quality as the primary source.  He
> could not say that man's thoughts, creativity, and values are his own as
> opposed to a level of Quality innate to the natural world.  Instead we must
> believe that experience is common to atoms, rocks and trees.
>
> Platt understands the concept of individualism, as does Laramie Loewen who
> occasionally participates in this forum.  You and I are on the same page
> philosophically, Micah; and it's the cardinal issue for me.  It's also a
> losing argument here.  We stand accused of either solipsism or Randianism.
> As long as the Pirsigians dismiss proprietary awareness as the fundamental
> core of experiential reality, they will be unable to comprehend the point of
> existence or the meaning of the individual life.
>
> I note that they're now talking about putting the MoQ thesis into a child's
> book.  What better way to pre-indoctrinate children to the nihilism they'll
> be subjected to as university students!
>
> Cheers,
> Ham
>
>
> 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/
>