[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

[Platt Holden]

Ham -

[Platt previously]
> > 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.

OK.- "possess" bad choice of word.  Each of us is sensitive to values in a 
unique way.  Is that better?

[Platt]
> > 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."

As I said before, I don't believe in idealism. I'll go with Lorenz's 
organisms whose perceptions and values are as "real" as ours, only 
different. (Does it concern you that some on this site consider values to 
be real but not thoughts?)

> > 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.

As I run into the man on the street I see very little evidence of his 
"search for meaning." Nor do I think intellect is necessarily the path to 
finding such meaning, if indeed any exists.
 
> > 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.
 
Let not your heart be troubled. I do not demean awareness nor does Pirsig. 
His entire metaphysics begins with pure awareness. It's just that for some 
reason you find it better to confine awareness to human beings
while I find it better to extend it to all creatures great and small, 
although it shines differently in different creatures. I find it somewhat 
ironic that you cite proprietary awareness as the essential criterion for 
a meaningful philosophy but can only find a couple of others who 
understand it. That in itself tells me something's missing from 
Essentialism. But, I could be wrong.

Regards,
Platt.