> Marsha: > Radical Empiricism is a reified concept. > > Hi Marsha,
One could add that the concept of 'concepts' is a reified concept too. Best, Mary > > On Sep 3, 2010, at 5:44 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > > > > > Marsha said: > > I do miss Bo. Because he kept the discussion centered on the MoQ's > being beyond SOM, and the MoQ's understanding transcending > subject/object metaphysical thinking, and as Wikipedia clearly states: > "Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is largely > concerned with the subject-object problem." ...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. > ...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. ..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. > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > This thread began with the evidence you're asking for and those > quotes from James's biographer were centered on going beyond SOM. > Pirsig and James are saying that subjects and objects are secondary > concepts that have been reified. (Where did you ever get the idea that > intellectual patterns ARE reified by definition? Concepts are not the > problem, reification is.) Reification is the whole difference between > SOM and the MOQ. In the former subjects and objects are reified and in > the latter they are not. In the former they are not just concepts but > in the latter they are just concepts. Radical empiricism is already a > demonstration of an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts. > I mean, everything you're asking for was already in the initial post. > Maybe you should read it again, but much more slowly and carefully.dmb > says: Yes, Pirsig quotes James on this point and he equates his own > Quality with James's "pure experience". In his second book Pirsig > explicitly identifie > s with James's radical empiricism but he was already saying the same > thing back in ZAMM. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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
