[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <Jos.Laycock at OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK>:

> Further discussion it is then:
> 
> On psychaitric illness, I recall that Pirsig is at some pains to describe it
> as a cultural/intellectual phenomenon, yes this may be underpinned by
> certain inorgainc and biological patterns but as stated previously this is
> the same with all patterns that are written on top of lower ones. The
> thought is still a thought even if it is an abberent one. A "correct"
> thought also stems from a biological/chemical process. 

OK. I see your point. I would argue, however, that an "incorrect" thought,
like thinking you are Napoleon, indicates you are unable to take care of
yourself and thus require treatment to regain the "correct" thoughts necessary
for you to regain self-sufficency and not be a threat to yourself or others. The
"treatment" these days is often drugs to rebalance your brain chemistry. But
can we agree that what someone thinks about art, business or politics is not
dependent on inorganic or biological patterns? In other words, no tinkering 
with brain chemistry can turn a socialist into a conservative?  
 
> "People are 
> > harder to define, being at times biological, at other times 
> > social, and
> > occasionally intellectual." 
> IMHO a person is all things all at once, our actions though can be placed
> within particular levels. 

Agree. That's what I meant by "at times." 

> The chemical burn examople can be changed as I see any reference to eating
> makes it a biological issue in your eyes, how about sunburn: 
> I can choose to stay in UV light for nine hours, it causes inorganic damage
> to the cells in my skin, its a bad decision and one that runs against the
> life favouring morality that exists in the inorganic level. 

Yes, humans are unique in that they can deliberately choose to live or not, or
in your example, hurt themselves.

> Humans aren't unique in making choices that override biological urges, what
> evidence is there for this assertion? Animals also choose to avoid self
> endangering activities, they also choose to act co-operatively.

I don't agree that animals can override biological urges since all their choices
are governed by biological instincts. They act purposefully but not with
forethought as to the consequences of their behavior. They are not beneficiaries
of free will.

> In a further
> blurring of the distinction, many humans are entirely unable to resist
> biological urges and excercise no choice whatsoever, hence the chronic
> obesity problems that sweep the world today, and all other addictive
> behaviours.

As proved every day, people can overcome their addictions. I happen to know
several alcoholics who haven't had a drink in 20 years. I also know people who
have lost weight and kept it off. Same for smokers who no longer smoke. So
I don't buy this "entirely unable to resist biological urges bit," i.e., the
"I'm a helpless victim" excuse. As Katie Hepburn said to Humphrey Bogart in the
"African Queen" when Bogart said it wasn't natural not to have a drink of booze
now and then  -- "Nature, Mr. Alnut, was what we were put on this earth to rise above."

Platt

 

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/