Hi Marsha, ... 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.
What you are saying seems in accord with my view. Would you agree with this? The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational objective knowledge, which denies the existence of Quality. Best, Mary > > Hi Mary, > > Yes, 'concept' is a reified concept too. In Buddhism, the last word on > Emptiness is that 'Emptiness, too, is empty.' It seems to me that it > is presenting the notion that all the talk of emptiness has been a > reification, and in the end Emptiness is empty of independent > existence, that it cannot be isolated as an independent object of > analysis. Aside from Dynamic Quality, it is all static patterns of > value, but I understand the patterns in the Intellectual Level to be > 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. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Mary wrote: > > >> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
