[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Ron Kulp]

     Not really sure if this is the first and original cognitive process
'what is good and not good'.  For example, a good for a human being may
not be good for say a bear, but if we are kind enough to understand that
this bear values this 'thing' as good, then even though we don't find
this 'thing' to be good in the overall reality something values this
'thing' as good, so, why wouldn't it be good?  In other words,
everything is valued by something, so, where does the 'not-good' fit in
here?

1.  WELL, I THINK YOUR'RE GETTING A BIT PARTICULAR, I THINK MOST EVERY
ORGANISM RESPONDS TO STIMULI...PAIN, PLEASURE...
AND FORMS MEMORY PATTERNS AS A RESULT, EVEN THE MOST BASIC LIFE
FORMS...SURE IT'A MATTER RELATIVITY ON WHATS GOOD
I THINK LIVING ORGANISMS RESPOND POSITVELY TO LIFE NUTURING STIMULI AND
ADVERSLY TO LIFE DETRIMENTAL STIMULI..
SO "NOT GOOD" BEING DEATH, PAIN,

What 'metaphor of the mind' might be confused with actual reality?  How
might you ever know actual reality, following your line of thinking, if
metaphor of the mind disturbs (confuses) actual reality?


2. ACTUAL REALITY IS THE NATURAL EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE, THE METAPHOR
IS THE MINDS PERCEPTION OF IT. THE IDEA IS TO STILL THE MIND
LIKE THE FACE OF A POND TO ALLOW A MORE ACURATE REFLECTION OF THE
UNIVERSE OR "REALITY" ..BUT TO REALLY KNOW ACTUAL REALITY, SOME WOULD
ARGUE A LOBOTOMY WOULD BE IN LINE. TO BE MORE LIKE A SMALL CHILD AND
LIVE IN THE NOW AND HAVE NO PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING.

   
What is non-existence?
DEATH, AS CLOSE AS I CAN DEFINE.


 
-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Heather Perella
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:57 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

Hello Ron,

     [Ron] 
> is there evidence of animals holding concepts independent of man?
> I WOULD THINK THE ANSWER WOULD BE "NO"  ONE WOULD THINK HUMAN 
> CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS HAD ITS BEGINNINGS RIVALING THAT OF MODERN PRIMATES

> THE MIND SEEMS TO HAVE AN INTANGIBLE "QUALITY" THAT SEEMS NIETHER TO 
> BE DEFINED NOR MEASURED BY ANY PHYSICAL OR CONCEPTUAL MEANS.
> THE MINDS FIRST AND ORIGINAL COGNITIVE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE DETERMINING

> WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD.

     Not really sure if this is the first and original cognitive process
'what is good and not good'.  For example, a good for a human being may
not be good for say a bear, but if we are kind enough to understand that
this bear values this 'thing' as good, then even though we don't find
this 'thing' to be good in the overall reality something values this
'thing' as good, so, why wouldn't it be good?  In other words,
everything is valued by something, so, where does the 'not-good' fit in
here?

     [Ron]   
> WHEN DEVELOPED THIS SEEMS TO
> ORIGINATE AND
> MANIFEST ITSELF AS ANALOGIE AND METAPHOR, DEVELOPING INTO "NAMING"
> AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE. CREATING A MICROCOSIM USED TO UNDERSTAND 
> AND COPE WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. THE MISTAKE IS CONFUSING 
> THIS "METAPHOR OF THE MIND" WITH ACTUAL REALITY

     What 'metaphor of the mind' might be confused with actual reality?
How might you ever know actual reality, following your line of thinking,
if metaphor of the mind disturbs (confuses) actual reality?  
  
     [Ron]
> WHAT SEEMS TO SEPERATE THE HUMAN MIND FROM OTHERS IS THE ABILITY TO 
> CONCIEVE OF ITS OWN NON-EXISTENCE.
> ANY INPUT? 

        


Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 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/