Greetings Ham, 

On Sep 12, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> Dear Marsha --
> 
> 
>> I am getting quite tired of being called names because I think outside
>> someone else's box.  I don't expect to be told that I am not permitted
>> to use the word reification in my definition of the Intellectual Level,
>> and I don't expect be told I am an idiot when I determine that truth
>> within the MoQ is relative.  And I am sick of being told I am
>> anti-intellectual because I think that RMP's "Kill all intellectual patterns.
>> Kill them completely"  Is the key to actual awakening to the MoQ's
>> highest point-of-view.  Not this, not that. Yes it is my favorite.
>> It is my bottom line, and it is past speculation.  It is habit.
> 
> Reification is an archaic word for treating an abstraction as a concrete 
> thing.  The term is generally used with contemptful or deprecatory intent. 
> For example, Karl Marx is said to have stated that representing human beings 
> as "commoditiies", such as "the labor force", reifies man by depriving him of 
> his individuality or character.

I like the word.  I think it works perfectly to explain the functioning of 
mind.  This is the MoQ, I would think a fresh understand is possible.  


> 
> The philosophical equivalent is "hypostasis", which means construing a 
> conceptual idea as a real existent.  Since I am a phenomenalist, I prefer the 
> simpler verb "objectivize" when referring to experienced phenomena (i.e., 
> "patterns" in Pirsig's vernacular).

Yes, I did see a reference to hypostasis, but most Buddhist text use 
'reification'.  I do think the MoQ is a bridge between the science of the West 
and the insight/wisdom of the East, so I will continue to use it.  


> The problem I have with your concept of intellect is the same one I have with 
> that unfortunate Pirsig quote.  If we were to take it seriously--that is, 
> "kill" or eliminate all intellectual thought--what do you suppose would 
> happen to reasoning from our knowledge of how the world works?  Virtually 
> every field related to human advancement would cease, including medical 
> research, technology, mathematics, economics, sociology, and the analysis of 
> human history.  Learning would literally be impossible, for most of our 
> understanding comes from the deductions and inferences that intellection 
> affords us.  Moreover, the intellectual function in no way impedes or hampers 
> philosophical thought; in fact, intellection is critical for the development 
> of philosophy.

I have explained before that I understand this statement to  "Kill all 
intellectual patterns." as mediation/mindfulness which is a technique to 
awakening and eventually enlightenment.  That I am accused of 
anti-intellectualism for citing it is ridiculous.  RMP recommends Steven 
Hagen's book 'Buddhism Plain and Simple', which has much to say on this topic.  
 


> Whether or not the "material" world is substantively real is itself an 
> intellectual question.  So if it weren't for your intellect, you would not be 
> raising the issue.  But even if objective patterns are "neither this nor 
> that", are you going to withdraw from existence and live out your life in a 
> fantasy world that only you imagine?  That doesn't seem a very practical 
> alternative, no matter what your Buddhist gurus tell you.

No I am not going to withdraw into a world without patterns, unless I am 
meditating.  The idea is to keep close the understanding of the nature of all 
patterns, but when necessary to choose the best pattern/process for the task at 
hand.  


> Our differentiated experience on this planet can teach us much about 
> spirituality, relationships, and morality, despite our intellectual 
> limitations.  Above all, living in a relational world affords us intimate 
> awareness of Value.  I don't know about you, but it is inconceivable to me 
> that the splendors of this universe do not point to an order of Reality 
> beyond human comprehension.  If I am right, this means that your life, as 
> well as mine, has a purpose or destiny that transcends finite existence.  If 
> I'm wrong, we have nothing to lose by participating fully in this life with 
> high expectations of where it may lead.

I will not speculate on a 'purpose', but agree there is beauty and love to be 
found in each moment.  


> 
> Essentially yours,
> Ham


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

Reply via email to