Re: [Spam] Re: MD the metaphysics of free enterprise

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 13:46:22 BST

  • Next message: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value/Horsepucky???"

    Hi Johnny,

    > I wouldn't expect you (or anything else) to blink in and out of existence
    > when no one is looking at you. That is one of my strongest, highest
    > quality beliefs. And remember that you have been experienced, your
    > existence has been recognized in the public records and in people's beliefs
    > (your mother's, the doctor's, etc), and there's no way that can be undone.
    > If there were no evidence of you existing ever in any consciousness, then I
    > would say that you probably didn't exist.

    I'm glad I don't have to depend on public records (which can be forged) or
    my mother, doctor, etc. (all dead) for my existence.

    > Besides, you are a consciousness, part of the human consciousness that
    > creates everything, so while you are alone you are still creating the world
    > and being created by patterns of morality.

    In other words, there's I who creates me? Who is this I? If I identify
    this I, who is doing the identifying? Another I? How many "I's" must I
    postulate.
     
    > David M wrote:
    > >How about from the other side. Take sensory deprivation,
    > >it seems to destroy the experience of an SOM type.
    > >Does this seems to have important implications about
    > >the relationship between being and sense?
    >
    > Sense just senses for a small sample of time, and the world in between
    > those senses is filled in by our minds according to our beliefs. Thus,
    > while we are asleep or in a sensory deprivation tank, our minds believe
    > that things contnue to exist.

    How can you possibly know that minds believe that things continue to exist
    when we're asleep?
     
    > I'm surprised this idea, that existence and being come from experience and
    > don't actually exist "out there", meet resistance? How can one accept
    > Lila without agreeig with this?

    I'm surprised you don't see that experience must necessarily exist before
    existence and being can "come from experience." You have accounted for
    the existence of the cart (existence and being) but ignored the existence
    and being of the horse. Your argument appears circular: experience that
    creates existence is by existence created.

    Platt

      

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 14:20:32 BST