Re: On the FSM, the IPU, et al., part 2 of 2

This is post 2 of 2 in response to the following AiDs post.

Firstly, we should point out that, as per New Atheist “reasoning,” the primary point to make is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves namely: who spaghettied the spaghetti? We may likewise ask: who amassed the meatballs?
Since we cannot answer these questions the Spaghettied One does not answer anything.

Your word order is misleading, here. You could say that "The primary point I want to make is that, per New Atheist 'reasoning', the FSM is not a real alternative because...". Your current word order, however, indicates that you think that "according to New Atheists, the primary point of the FSM is that it is not a real alternative because...". Unless you are actually starting the article off on the terrible foot of committing the transgression that you accused many atheists of doing earlier (not knowing what you're attacking), this latter version is inappropriate.

As best I can tell, the primary point of the FSM is to hold unsound religious (and, particularly, various Christian) arguments up to the light after stripping away the centuries of tradition and taboo. And, insofar as there are some, reveal sound religious arguments to be worthwhile despite the dubious company they keep. This point is largely achieved at the tips of two lemmas: First, by repeating the essence of an argument with only superficial elements altered, the invalid conclusion becomes more obviously invalid, so the flaws in the argument are more visible. Second, when anti-FSM people (atheist and non-atheist alike) attack the FSM position, the essence of the attack can be repeated, with only the superficial elements changed back, in order to make an equally valid (or invalid) attack on the original argument.

For example,
Christians argue that Christian creationism should be given 'equal time' in the classroom.
Pastafarians argue, mutatis mutandis, that FSM creationism should be given 'equal time' too.
Everyone sane realizes that the Pastafarian argument is bupkis.
Sufficiently many people realize that the Christian argument, which is in essence the exact same argument, is insufficient.

For another example...

A Christian says:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a physical body and thus, is not immaterial nor spirit: it has extension in space is therefore limited by spatial dimensions and restricted by locality and thus, is not omnipresent. One adherent of the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster made specific reference to its “noodly appendage.”

A Pasfatarian replies:

That's a good point! And, come to think of it, your god had a physical body (Jesus) and thus, was not immaterial nor spirit: he had extension in space was therefore limited by spatial dimensions and restricted by locality and thus, was not omnipresent. At least one adherent of the cult of your god made specific reference to the "hand of God". Gosh, I guess you're right, and neither the FSM nor your god could be the creator revealed by natural revelation!

For another example...

A Christian says:

Since the Flying Spaghetti Monster is physical it is subject to the absorption and deflection of light particles and is therefore visible and particularly hued. Bobby Henderson did claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is “invisible and can pass through normal matter” and so either Bobby Henderson is a false prophet or the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows how to traverse dimensions.

A Pastafarian replies:

Oooh, another zinger! And it hits both of us, again! Since Jesus is physical he's subject to the absorption and deflection of light particles and is therefore visible and particularly hued. But the Bible does claim that your god is invisible, "eternal, immortal, invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17) and so either the Bible is a false holy book or your god knows how to traverse dimensions.

For another example...

A Christian says:

Since the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s physical body consists of spaghetti and meatballs the constituents of the godhead are as follows: eggs, salt and pepper, flour, water, beef and or pork, basil, parsley, mushrooms, bread crumbs, oil, etc.
Since these physical entities must have, by necessity, preexisted the Flying Spaghetti Monster it cannot be the uncaused first cause. Moreover, the constituents of spaghetti and meatballs must have been amassed by an Intelligent Chef who not only had access to various physical ingredients and knew how to put them together just right, fine tuned them, but utilized cookware and some form of energy with which to cook the ingredients.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made of the very materials which it is alleged to have created. It could not have created itself since it would have to have been in order to have created itself.
Since the Flying Spaghetti Monster is composed of various complex parts that were merged it had a beginning.
Since it is physical it is not immaterial.
Since it had a beginning it had a cause.
Since it had a beginning it is not eternal.
It experiences time and is not eternal.
It is limited by space. This is true even if it can pass though matter since it has to “pass through” it in order to make its way to another location. Therefore, it is not omnipresent.
Since it is composed of material objects it is not a contingent being.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not pass the test of natural theology.

A Pastafarian replies:

Darn. Totally ridiculous. You're right. Moreover, since your god's physical body consisted of flesh and bone the constituents of the godhead are as follows: calcium, protein, hemoglobin, water, etc. Since these physical entities must have, by necessity, preexisted your god it cannot be the uncaused first cause. Moreover, the constituents of flesh and bone must have been amassed by an Intelligent Biotechnician who not only had access to various physical ingredients and knew how to put them together just right, fine tuned them, but utilized labware and some form of energy with which to compose the ingredients.

Your god is made of the very materials which it is alleged to have created. It could not have created itself since it would have to have been in order to have created itself.
Since your god is composed of various complex parts that were merged it had a beginning.
Since it is physical it is not immaterial.
Since it had a beginning it had a cause.
Since it had a beginning it is not eternal.
It experiences time and is not eternal.
It is limited by space. This is true even if Jesus could walk on water since he has to “walk on” it in order to make its way to another location. Therefore, it is not omnipresent.
Since it is composed of material objects it is not a contingent being.

Your god does not pass the test of natural theology.

Could you easily pick out the flaws in the Pasafarian's replies? I hope so, since I think even I could... though I might not be able to do so while sticking to any sort of commonly-held Christian theology. I could say that Jesus isn't God, for example, thus cutting off the physicality problems altogether. I could say that God can execute miracles such as being immortal invisible and immaterial yet also being incarnated as a visibly physical mortal, with a cherry and being multiple persons at the same time on top. I'm sure you could come up with much more elegant justifications why your argument doesn't apply to your god but does apply to the FSM.

But unless you were basing your arguments on more than things that don't boil down to "Yeah, but MY god can do and be anything I want him to be!" the Pastafarian can then throw your illogic back in your face. The FSM's body is not the FSM, simply its body, and anyhow the FSM can execute miracles such as being immaterial and aspatial while still having one-or-more physical locations. Yay miracles.

Since you're writing as if you think you're waging an actual attack on the FSM, it sounds like you actually are guilty of the thing you accused many atheists of in Part 1. "Mariano exhibits a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which he argues—Pastafarianism." You don't seem to realize, among other things, that the Miraculous Nature of the FSM allows it to be invisible, eternal, uncaused, and immaterial while still having a temporally and spatially limited and interacting body. You argue that it's not uncaused based on perfectly reasonable conclusions about its physical body, but you seem ignorant of the Miracle that the FSM is the uncaused causer.

I can't really blame you much for your ignorance... most people are the kind that, if an atheist, would fall into the 'many atheists' group. Moreover, Miracles of eternal-yet-temporal and embodied-yet-immaterial are, as far as I'm concerned, junk... so I can't fault you for focusing only on one half of the contradiction, the same way I don't fault many atheists for their approach to theistic (and in particular Christian) miracles. It's still ignorance, though, and after your accusation in Part 1 it's also rather hypocritical.

Re: On the FSM, the IPU, et al., part 1 of 2

This is post 1 of 2 in response to the following AiDs post.

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue—the Bible’s Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were “raised Christian” (whatever that means), “went to Sunday School,” “was an altar boy,” “saw the movie (hyperbole intended),” etc.

In your opening sentence, you lay a heavy accusation against many atheists. I think your accusation, as it turns out, is quite correct, but there are some key pieces to it that you fail to add. For example, why would someone who was raised as a Christian, went to Sunday School, was an altar boy, and went to Jesus Camp (hyperbole intended) exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which you think they most often argue?

You will, I'm sure, note the insertion of 'you think' in my last question. When Bob the Rabid Atheist is ranting about the awfulness of some straw-man version of Christianity, I'd argue that Bob is not exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the straw-man, but rather a lack of knowledge of your particular flavor of Christianity. If you take Bob's foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe to be actually targeted at what you believe, then Bob would be exhibiting a dreadful lack of knowledge of what you think he's arguing against. I hope you can see that my adding 'you think' is not there in defense of Bob or his argument, but really is an important point of clarification.

On top of that point, I'll add something else that's not at all in Bob's favor: For all that Bob really is knowledgeable about his straw-man, chances are that Bob thinks that his straw-man is one and the same thing as "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". Just as he exposes a lack of knowledge about what you think he's talking about (but isn't), he engages in the mistake of thinking he's talking about one thing (what you think he's talking about) knowledgeably when he's actually talking about something different (his straw-man) knowledgeably.

So much for Bob's diatribe bearing any weight, huh? As I said, you've laid a heavy accusation, but I don't think you laid it quite as heavy as it should be.

That still leaves two very similar questions open, though: Why would both you and Bob be confused about whether he was discussing a straw man or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity"? Bob doesn't have much excuse, having grown up in a Christian environment, having had Christian indoctrination in Sunday School, and presumably displaying sufficient competence or understanding to be an acceptable altar boy. I can't speak to your qualifications, but I would guess that, at least on the surface, it would be reasonable for you to be able to tell the difference as well. And yet both of you get confused.

Let me say that again: Both of you are confused on the subject of what Bob is attacking (successfully or not). The question is why would either of you be, and the answer is that you both believe there is something properly called "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". As if there were just one such thing. As if there were only One Obviously Correct Way to interpret the One Obviously Correct translation of the One Obviously Correct compilation of Judeo-Christian holy texts.

The problem is, Bob's straw man, pallid though it is, actually is one of the many versions of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". What you think he's arguing against (very ineffectively) is a different version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity". Neither of them are all that close to my Catholic neighbor's version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", or my Mormon neighbor's version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", or my 'Twelve Tribes' (http://tinyurl.com/9jqxwa) neighbors' version of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity".

Bob actually exhibits a sound grasp of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) and his attacks (rabid as they are) are actually pretty on-target... which is why very few people actually adhere to "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T). Instead, they might be like you, and follow "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D), which is free of most of the serious problems of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B). Or they might be like someone in the Twelve Tribes, who follows "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T) which so radically reinterprets some particular bible compilation that it rarely has anything in common with "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D). Or they might be like a Mormon, who follows "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand M) which uses texts that a Catholic knows are not sources for "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand C).

So, yes, please do condemn Bob for attacking the straw-man of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B). Please help Bob, and the many other atheists like him, know that his arguments against "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B) are actually correct but they're not very relevant because what you care about and believe in is "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D) which is quite different. Make sure he knows that even if he does manage to understand, become knowledgeable on, choose to continue not believing, and ultimately attack "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand D), he is not automatically an authority on "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand M) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand C) or "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand T), and will have a lot more work to do if he wants to address those. Go ahead and let Bob know that the range of possible brands of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" are endless, and that his time would be far better served by helping people figure out what they should do and why they should do it, than going around trying to tear down every incarnation of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity".

Do not, however, make Bob's mistake and get stuck in the rut of thinking there is just One Obviously Correct "Bible's Judeo-Christianity". It's something that many Christians do, and it sets a terrible, terrible example for ex-Christians like Bob to follow, as well as for many atheists who never were Christian in the first place. Also, it happens to be one of the prominent features of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand B), and it would be pretty embarrassing if someone actually DID use that brand!

One tangent to stave off a potential misreading: Please do note the use of "One Obviously Correct", rather than "One Correct". It's the difference between "what you know to be true" and "what actually is true" - just because you can in all honesty say that you know something, that does not make your knowledge correct.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / natural revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

On the first part, I, for one, have moderate levels of knowledge about a few brands of "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity", but there are a lot more that I don't know the first thing about than there are that I can converse usefully upon.

On the second part, I freely admit that I have never yet had any clear explanation of 'revelation' or 'natural revelation', and would welcome one if you've got one.

We end up with atheists seriously arguing that the concept of God as postulated by Christian theology is on a par with postulating the existence of imaginary friends, fairies, celestial teapots, sky daddies or Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns.

No kidding. Again, it's back to the problem of confusing "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (brand X) with "the Bible's Judeo-Christianity" (The Obviously Correct One). If such atheists were clear that the concept of gods as postulated in all theologies which had thus far been clearly and unambiguously explained to them were on par with imaginary friends etc., I imagine theists would be less frustrated, more willing to explain what they actually believe, and get less defensive... which in turn would lead to atheists actually thinking about things that could be actual issues rather than straw-men, being less rabid, and getting less defensive in turn.

So, on to some explanation of 'natural revelation'?

Assumption 1: The universe began to exist.
Assumption 2: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Conclusion 1: The universe had a cause because it began to exist.

Well, the conclusion certainly follows from the assumptions, but I'm not yet persuaded that the assumptions are true in all possible worlds (i.e. necessarily true). Also, some clarification is needed on what you mean by 'universe' and 'exist' and 'cause'. For example, is the universe everything-everything (includes all of 'physical reality' as well as 'minds' and 'spirits' and 'souls' and 'gods') or is it everything-interactable (all physical forces and everything governed by those physical forces) or is it everything-metainteractable (all physical forces, everything governed by those forces, all the patterns that can arise among physical forces and things, and all patterns that can arise among patterns)?

Since time/space/matter began to exist: whatever caused it is...

Already, the scope of 'universe' is important. Clearly, you treat 'time' as part of 'the universe', but it also seems like you treat the notion of "anything which could be viewed analogously to time" as automatically part of 'the universe' as well. There's a (Science Fiction) story in which there is a universe which began to exist, which did have a cause, and time (as it had meaning within the universe) began to exist when the universe in question began to exist, but the cause of the universe in discussion came from a different universe, with a different and distinct 'time' all of its own. It might be fair to say that the caused universe's cause was timeless with respect to the caused universe, but not that it was timeless.

In anticipation of the objection that the caused universe is not properly 'a universe', and 'the universe' should encompass both caused and causing universes, I'll point back to my objection that you have not yet been clear on what constitutes 'the universe'. The first thing I'll be looking for in your definition is "How a causing-universe can be required to be part of 'the universe', but God is not required to be part of 'the universe'".

Since whatever caused the universe did cause it, that is; made something happen or caused an effect, whatever caused it is volitional, self-conscious and personal (meaning exhibiting characteristics of personhood or personality—conceiving plans, making decisions and taking actions).

Assuming your reasoning isn't just wishful, you're skipping a whole heap of important steps here. Or is it legitimate for me to just say "Since whatever caused the universe is atemporal, aspatial, and amaterial, whatever caused it is avolitional, aconsious, and apersonal (meaning exhibiting no characteristics of personhood or personality)" and have it automatically be true because I feel it's right?

Thus, we see how just in these few examples we learn quite a bit about the characteristics one should find in the universe’s cause.

If it began to exist. And if all things which exist have a cause. And depending on what you mean by 'universe' and 'time'. And if all causings originate in volition, self-consciousness, and personal-ness...

That's too many IFs to say we've learned much of anything, to say nothing about "quite a bit".

Clear definitions

When someone starts trying to clarify what they mean by words, I immediately whip out a search/replace and swap out the words-being-defined with nonwords, to make sure I don't accidentally equivocate between my accustomed definitions and the way the person is using the words. In this case, if you're curious, I used QUABBIN and HONEOKE.

Step two is to pull out some paper, or some mind-mapping software (in this case, I did use XPHLOMAS) and connect all the properties and examples and associations for each of the unknown words. For example, I put "Human (passing on DNA)" and "Baseball bat (hitting balls)" as examples for QUABBIN, and "Baseball bat (given by famous user of baseball bats)" as the lonely example for HONEOKE.

Step three, I set things aside for a while and try to give enough time that I can forget what words had originally been there, to reduce the influences of my normal language assumptions. Then, just looking at the mind-map, I try to figure out if there are already any terms in my vocabulary which come close to fitting the information related to my QUABBIN and HONEOKE nonwords.

Sometimes there are and they happen to be the original words, and that's very convenient, because apparently I use the words the same way as the person I'm corresponding with. Sometimes there aren't, and so I set up some automatic filtering so that when a message comes in the swap is automatically done to put in QUABBIN or HONEOKE... the new concepts I'm learning about... and then swap those back to what the person originally used when I send a message back out.

Sometimes, however, the descriptions seem to fit different terms or, worse yet, multiple different terms that I already use. This is also a good result, because it makes it clear that the attempt at definition either was incomplete or has lead to revealing an important disconnect in how we're relating concepts to each other.

Take, for example, the following attempt at figuring out if I had any names for concepts like QUABBIN and HONEOKE... the former I tried out as 'functional capacity' and the latter as 'price' or perhaps 'monetary compensation required for an exchange to be considered'.

In the course of the analysis, I had to swap out a few more words, which are left in their unguessed form for now.

I have often written of “functional capacity/price” just like that; as compound and interchangeable terms and concepts. But as of late I have been speculating as to what sort of difference there is between “functional capacity” and “price” (something beyond quoting a grammatical dictionary).

Everything has a “functional capacity” but not necessarily “price.”

It seems that “functional capacity” is intrinsic but “price” extrinsic.

For example, a baseball bat has a functional capacity: to hit balls. Yet, a baseball bat that was given to me by Reggie Jackson has functional capacity and now also has price since I gave it price.

Thus, rocks, chinchillas, cucumbers, stars, humans, etc. all have functional capacity as a natural consequence of the fact of their existence.

Another example, a human being has a functional capacity such as passing on their DNA. Yet, price does not seem to the sort of thing that we commandeer for ourselves, not something that we can assign to ourselves but something that is given unto us, bequeathed upon us by others.

For instance, when my young son sees a word that he does not yet know, even if he can actually read it, he will ask, “What does that mean?” If we suddenly underwent worldwide amnesia written texts would be priceless—we give price to words even as the original author employed the words due to the agreed upon price(s) that we have given them.

So, clearly the find/replace might have been improved by swapping "-less" with "lacking -", since priceless ends up being a rather different word than, say, "free", but otherwise not bad so far.

Moreover, it seems that whatever prices we have to other human beings are HALOKE. Ultimately, presupposing absolute materialism; everything is functional capacityful but priceless. This is because our functional capacity is a function while price is of a whole different category more akin to something ethereal—a concept.

There's a HALOKE there replacing 'HONEOKE-ettes' because it looks like another term is being defined.

Our functional capacity is that we perform certain functions and the function serves a certain functional capacity and is then done with. However, if price is something that we give to ourselves or that other, COLET humans, give to us then it is fleeting since one day—whether we are a Mother Theresa or a Joseph Stalin—anything and everything that we have ever thought, said or done will simply not matter in the least bit: be it tomorrow, in a year, in a decade, in a century, in a millennia—we will be gone and nothing that we have ever thought, said or done will be the least bit relevant.

I'm neither an actuary nor a slave trader, so the idea of assigning prices to humans is reasonably foreign to me... but every time a decision is made to tax X amount for safety regulation Y aimed at saving an average of Z lives, I guess there's effectively a price being set, so I can at least partially grok this. It seems like the author is also assuming that price is never allowed to change, though...

Also, I'm curious what this COLET term is about. The original is a term that, when used in carefully controlled mathematical settings, is very useful, but tends to be nonsensically used anywhere else I've seen it, so it gets a placeholder. So far, it is something that applies to at least some other humans.

Thus, to recap: since functional capacity is part of a process functional capacity serves its, well, functional capacity and is done with.
However, since price is a concept that exists within a PHLOMAS—either ours (which I do not accept but would be willing to entertain) or that of others—once the PHLOMAS ceases to function the price ceases and so we see that ultimately everything is priceless once the façade, or consoling delusion, of HALOKEs are exposed for what they are—nothing. Nothing, perhaps, but a fleeting bio-chemical reaction within the PHLOMAS of a fleeting bio-organism.

There's HALOKE again. Apparently HALOKEs are illusory, consoling delusions, next to nothing, and transient epiphenomena associated only with certain kinds of life.

Also, this part seems to contradict the earlier idea that price is something agreed-upon. Why should a certain price stop being agreed upon just because one of the agreeing parties kicks the bucket and their PHLOMAS (whatever that is) presumably ceased to function? Generally, there's other people out there to carry on the agreement. Sure, if there's only one person in the world left who thinks something has a certain price, then if they die, that price vanishes with them... but since price is supposed to be something agreed-upon, once you're down to one person it's not really a price anymore, is it?

Apparently, this leads to the idea that nothing actually has any price, so it's apparent that either the author and I are living in very different worlds, or (more likely) HONEOKE didn't get explained clearly enough. But, just for fun, let's see where the rest of this goes...

If we were not conscious we would merely be, pretty much what we are on a materialistic/naturalistic view, bio-organisms who are one day moving about and the next worm food—worms who are merely bio-organisms who are one day moving about and the next food for something else.

As an aside: I can only wonder why we long for, seek for, strive for, live for, die for, price.

That's a big question. Even if you ask the littler and more specific question of the same things about 'price of oil', it is still a big question!

Let us presuppose that price does truly exist.

What is price?

It is a concept.

What is a concept?

A concept is an PHLOLET.

Where does an PHLOLET exist?

An PHLOLET exist in a PHLOMAS.

Which raises the questions of "What is a PHLOMAS" and "What is a PHLOLET". It seems clear that a PHLOMAS is some kind of container for PHLOLETs, and that PHLOLETs are some collection of abstract patterns which includes concepts, but that's about it so far.

Is price non-COLET or COLET?

If it is COLET then it is not truly price (though it could be functional capacity), so it is non-COLET.

Ok, so COLET applies to some other humans and possibly HONEOKE/price. At least, the question of whether COLET applies to price is supposed to be a meaningful one.

Aside from the problem that COLET and non-COLET are currently in need of clarification, I'm concerned that here in the conclusions/argument section is a brand-new assertion about price/HONEOKE - that there is a 'true price' which is non-COLET, and that COLET prices are 'not true price'. It's not cool to go redefining terms in the middle of an argument.

Does price change or is it unchangeable?

If it changes then it is not price (“change” here price from price to something else and not just a change within the original price in which case it is still price).

Again, another redefinition mid-argument. Plus a re-affirmation of either living in different worlds or insufficient up-front definition. Also, something about the sentence just reads... weird. I suspect that this is not only a mid-stride redefinition, but also a case of using the incompletely defined term itself in the process of redefining it. Don't get me wrong, I adore properly constructed recursive definitions! I just don't appreciate improperly constructed ones.

Thus, price is an non-COLET and unchanging PHLOLET that exists in a PHLOMAS.

What sort of PHLOMAS contains an non-COLET and unchanging PHLOLET?

A PHLOMAS that is non-COLET and unchanging.

What sort of being possesses an non-COLET and unchanging PHLOMAS

Ah-ha! Apparently a PHLOMAS (a PHLOLET container) is something that can be possessed, and they come in different varieties. And, moreover, there are some kind of discriminatory ownership restirctions - only some sorts of beings can possesses a PHLOMAS that is unable to change and isn't COLET.

Moreover, COLETness is something that can apparently apply or not apply to a PHLOMAS.

An non-COLET and unchanging being.

Since COLET is not yet defined, this doesn't convey much about what kind of being can own certain kinds of PHLOMAS, but it does at least indicate that some beings can be COLET (certain other humans) while it's also sensical for a being to be non-COLET (at least, it may be sensical for beings incapable of change... which doesn't sound like any beings at all, so perhaps this is a clever way of saying 'no beings can own a non-COLET and unchangeable PHLOMAS')

Therefore, while everything and everyone has a functional capacity only the non-COLET and unchanging being can give us price.

Before even worrying about COLETness, I note that the human being certainly doesn't fit the bill for 'the unchanging being', nor does the broader notion of the living being. The newly dead being (insofar is you can call anything non-living a being) is still going to be decomposing, but possibly this works for the sufficiently-long-ago-dead being. No more physical changes, and you might stretch a bit and say the dead being can be said to exist (be a being) in the memory of the living being. If enough time has passed, that amounts to either 'forgotten'... which I'll discount as a form of being-in-memory... or 'ossified to a static but memorable footnote that is reliably passed down through the generations'.

I don't know how COLET/non-COLET further narrows this down, but it looks like the final conclusion is that 'true' price is something that is only assigned by the memory-beings that remain of significant historical figures.

Or, in other words, I don't think I had enough information to figure out what was actually supposed to be conveyed by HONEOKE.

On the other hand, QUABBIN seemed to pose no difficulties, so it looks like I may have got that one right.

Incidentally, the original that I'm trying to understand can be found over at AiDs