[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[Ham Priday]

Platt --



> Many thanks for the correcting my misunderstanding.
> If I get it right, proprietary awareness means each of us
> possesses a unique set of values.

We do not "possess" values.  Value is our innate affinity or attraction for
Essence.  We SENSE it psychosomatically, which divides it into a variety of
"feelings" -- e.g., awe, joy, beauty, desire, envy, love, revulsion, pain,
boredom, anxiety, contentment, etc.  Intellectually we "objectify" these
differentiated values into specific objects of experience, which creates our
reality -- our "being-aware".  Becoming aware is the appropriation of those
values that fulfill our own unique psychosomatic "needs" or
"essence-deficiency".  The particular value configuration that we choose is
our unique "value complement" -- our essential selfness.  No two
value-complements are identical.  Thus, awareness is proprietary to the
individual, and experiential reality is valuistically different for each of
us.

 Animals don't plant gardens, design automobiles, admire art,
> > or ponder their fate.  Whatever "planning" they do is instinctual and
based
> > on their genetic makeup.  All knowledge of reality is human.  All values
> > experienced are human.  All the decisions, theories, and principles we
live
> > by are human, and they originate with the individual.  Man is the
> > choice-maker of his world, and the physical universe is an
anthropocentric
> > reality.
>
> We part company on the belief that animals don't possess or experience
> values. Their choices are not as wide as ours, but choices exist for them
> nevertheless -- or so we can assume from their behavior. As the great
> zoologist and Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz said, "What the organism
> learns about its environment can be expressed in the simple phrase, "Its
> better here" or "Its not so good here." -- and then act accordingly.

Again, animals don't have values or make moral decisions; they exhibit
"behavioral preferences"  This is not to say that they are not sentient
creatures but that they are incapable of realizing esthetic, moral, or
intellectual values.  In other words, they do not make a conscious
contribution to the body of knowledge that constitutes our reality.  Reality
is anthropocentric.  As Micah said, "reality cannot be shown to exist
without humans.  Man is the measure of all things.  Humans are the measure
of reality.
Reality, in fact, is human."

> To me "logical proof" is ultimately a chimera. We've learned
> from Godel that logic is incomplete. It makes assumptions it
> cannot prove.  As for the MOQ being an example of "Social
> Constructivism," we disagree.  At the MOQ highest static level
> is intellect, the proprietary capability of individuals, not societies.
> Societies don't think.

Logical proof may be a chimera, but reality isn't.  Nor is the desire to
know, which underlies what we sense as Value.  We are all driven to come up
with an answer to the meaning of life.  We are all philosophers by
necessity.  The answer we come up with will be an expression of our freedom
to choose.  Some are content to believe in whatever makes them happy; others
strive for a more consistent, logically-based paradigm.  The MoQ and
Essentialism are examples of the latter.  That absolute knowledge is
inaccessible ensures the complete freedom of our choices.  If we possessed
total knowledge, we would be denied this freedom.  Each life experience is a
search for meaning.  This is the intellectual value of existence.

> Anyway, what is it about "it's better here" that you find
> lacking as an explanation?  I sure you consider Essentialism
> a better metaphysics than the alternative. Otherwise, why have
> you spent so much of you limited time on this earth on
> developing and explaining it?  I can't think of any better
> explanation for your efforts. (There, I've said it again.)

My answer is stated above.  If "the alternative" is not having a philosophy
or a personal "belief system", I would agree that it's better to have one.
I think most philosophers would agree, as demonstrated by their efforts in
working toward a plausible theory.  To know what can and cannot be known
from experience, and to theorize the rest (it seems to me) is the quest of
philosophy.  The proof is in the pudding.  Since you've expressed
satisfaction with Pirsig's thesis, I assume you feel that that man's world
has been enhanced -- made "better" -- as a result of one man's philosophy.
My slant is somewhat different than Pirsig's, but my aim is the same.

I still have no idea what "spaghetti monsters" are, but I got into this
dialogue because of my frustration with the way human awareness was being
demeaned.  For me, the most immanent empirical truth is the proprietary
nature of awareness.  If we reject this principle, we've lost all hope for a
meaningful philosophy.  I assumed that you felt the same way, but apparently
I was wrong.  Out of this entire august assembly of intellectuals, there are
apparently only two others who understand proprietary awareness as I do.
And that saddens me.

Regards,
Ham