John, I'd like some examples of non-subject/object intellectual patterns. Intellectual patterns that are not involved with the process of objectification. Objectification defined by Wikipedia as:
"Objectification is the process by which an abstract concept is treated as if it is a concrete thing or physical object. In this sense the term is synonym to reification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron keeps quoting LILA, for what purpose I don't always know, but it's > worth analyzing. > > > "Actually the issue before him was not whether there should be > a metaphysics of Quality or not. There already is a > metaphysics of quality. A subject-object metaphysics is in fact > a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the first > slice of undividede experience - is into subjects and objects. > depends on what you mean by "first", I guess. But either in the primary sense or the historical, the S/O divide isn't first. What is good and what is not good is first. You get a sense of that before you even see any objects. You get it floating in the womb, you kick, eventually you objectify. But first, you qualify. But RMP has already had the Quality revelation and so he says, "first division of (pre-existing) Quality" And what he means by this is ... HIS first division. As a man, part of a culture, steeped in SOM, this is the FIRST divide THIS culture, to which he is born, makes. But not all cultures everywhere. And when you are crafting a metaphysics, you wanna make it universal. So you can't make S/O the 4th level. It wouldn't then be a universally true metaphysic. > Seen in the light of the MOQ this (about SOM a "moq") makes sense. > The intellectual level WAS a subject/object metphysics while SOM, but > there can't be two basic understandings (metaphysics) and SOM has > lost its metaphysical "credentials" to the MOQ and is now a sub-set of > it.. > Right. A subset, not THE subset. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is > supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it > doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box > that sits above these two were boxes, Quality itself. And once > he'd seen this he also saw a huge number of ways in which > Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the > ways. The question was, which way was best? > Yeah, this guy says it better than me. S/O is just one of many. And from a pragmatically materialistic tradition, the best. For a while. But you can only make that analysis when you get to a certain point, and from that point forward, success has effects that go beyond anyone's predictive power. That's trouble with a T. > But now atoms and molecules are just one of four > levels of static patterns of quality and there is no intellectual > requirement that any level dominate the other three." -Lila > chpter12 > hey... I wish I'd remembered that quote. Oh well, it's nice to get independent confirmation. 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/
