[MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

Sat Oct 14 06:07:57 PDT 2006

The Bible was written by a group, as were the Warren Commission and the 911
Commission Reports, The Upanishads, The Encyclopedia Britannica, The Iliad
and the Dictionary. The list is boring to be sure but it goes on and on.

Case  

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Micah
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:44 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

Ham,

You are right, I am having a hard time trying to explain my thoughts or they
don't understand Solipsism. I can't ever remember reading or hearing of a
book written by a group. I wonder why?

Micah

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:43 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spaghetti Monsters

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/