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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER JR Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:06 AM To: [email protected] 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/ 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/
