[MD] Clouds

[Micah]

Arlo,

Your post's symmetry was the balance of, on the one hand saying man is
merely animal that is not special and other hand having the balls to post
that superior pontification without realizing the irony that we are the only
"animal" that can post pompous pontifications. You clearly undid yourself
with that one. I don't remember sharing any views on mother Theresa or
Gandhi, but thanks for knowing them. I am not religious, I believe I have
shared that many times - please stop painting me with your religious brush.

I do not advocate Solipsism, never have.

You childish method of "name calling" things you don't understand is
tedious, but children can be tedious.

It is important to remember the difference between potential and reality,
and that they are not the same, when examining the statement - man is the
measure of all things. If you "believe" that potential is reality then it is
Solipsism. If you know that potential is not reality, then it is something
else.

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER JR
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:06 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Clouds


[SA]
I was typing up a response to Micah wondering, again, what specifically he
was
trying to say.  He liked your post ("I like the symmetry"), but then says
the
post "smacks of smug 'superiority'".

[Arlo]
Micah was attempting to be sarcastic. These are the same people, mind you,
who
prattle about how Mother Theresa or Gandhi were the most selfish people who
ever lived because their actions made them feel good about themselves. I
suppose they'd include their much ballyhooed King of Kings, after all can
you
how relieved he must have felt knowing he saved us all from our sins.
Selfish
prick.

As for the rest of his ideas, I think Case has it nailed as rather
straightforward solipsism. He is trying to cast this solipstic net over "all
men" rather than just "me", but this is logically impossible.

If nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans, then nothing can be
shown to exist independent of "me". After all, what proof do I have that if
I
died "stuff" would continue? I've never died to test this hypothesis, so its
pure speculation on my part. Don't get me wrong, Micah has ample proof that
the
world will continue if OTHERS die. He's seen that, likely, but what he's
never
seen is proof that in HIS absence the world will continue.

In others words, the only way Micah can "prove" the world will continue
after he
dies is to die. And even then he'll never know the outcome. Oh he can banter
about how he recognizes commonality between him and others, and this leads
to
the conjecture he tauts. But a just as valid explanation is that everyone
else
is figments of Micah's mind. Sure, when one of us dies stuff continues.
We're
just ghostly thoughts in his head. But when HE dies, the balloon pops.
Reality
ceases.

As John Cleese would say, "this parrot is no more".


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/