To repeat:
I understand the MoQ to Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience.)
Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules for
their rational analysis and manipulation. Intellectual patterns process from a
subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the
illusion of independence, or 'thingness'. The fourth level is a formalized
subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational,
objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity.
As far as I know intellectual patterns are as I stated above, and I have seen
no evidence to the contrary. Have you presented an intellectual pattern that
transcends a subject/object representation of reality, excluding art which may
use intellectual patterns but also makes use of inorganic, biological and
social patterns and often goes beyond. Where is your evidence? Let's see you
demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts, that does not
create a self involved in analyzing such concepts, or does not represent the
rules for such manipulation? You cannot do it, because the minute you've begun
you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing self.
Marsha
On Sep 4, 2010, at 9:31 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>
>> Marsha to Andre:
>>
>> Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules for
>> their rational analysis and manipulation.
>>
>> Andre:
>> This clearly shows your misunderstanding of the MOQ Marsha. The whole 'idea'
>> of reification is a SOM product. The MOQ opposes SOM, or rather 'rectifies'
>> SOM, by suggesting that 'patterns of value' are a better tool to grasp our
>> understanding of (conventional) reality. To wit: no reification but the
>> ongoing process of valuation.
>
> Marsha:
> The 'idea' of reification is an intellectual process. The MoQ does not
> oppose intellectualization, but understands its limitation.
>
>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> As far as I know intellectual patterns are as I stated above, and I have
>> seen no evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Andre:
>> You have been presented with plenty of evidence Marsha by many here on this
>> list and notably dmb. But I know your thoughts on his posts...you read them
>> with your eyes closed.
>
> You have done no more than present abstracted reified concepts pointing to
> abstracted reified concepts pointing to abstracted reified concepts. As if
> presenting the word 'Tao' and some explanation is demonstrating something.
> It is not. Nor does presenting quotes from James demonstrate Radical
> Empiricism. Nor is talk about 'direct experience' direct experience.
> Personally I like intellectual spov, but I don't confuse them for being
> something 'real'.
>
>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> And surely you wouldn't expect my understanding to change because dmb, Arlo,
>> Ron, Dan or the Pope think differently. My mind doesn't work like that.
>>
>> Andre:
>> Not for a minute would I expect this from you Marsha. You are the mind
>> trying to see and understand your mind much like the eye that tries to see
>> itself. This really is all your own soliloquize.
>
> Such opinion/gibberish does not influence me.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
___
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/md/archives.html
