Howdy MOQers:

Platt aid to Horse:
All words, numbers, punctuation and other aspects of language are imaginary 
symbols, imaginary meaning "not real.  ...The word "Objects" is an imaginary 
symbol. The words "a rock", "a plant" and "a pig" are all imaginary symbols. If 
this doesn't answer your questions, I don't know what will.

dmb says:
Huh? In what sense are symbols not real? Are we not communicating by way of 
symbols right now? 
One of the major points in Pirsig's work is that things of real value are 
dismissed as merely subjective, as unreal or imaginary. The MOQ's attack on SOM 
is aimed at that kind of dismissal. The moral codes rest on the premise that 
customs, morals and ideas are as real as rocks and trees.

"We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom for its 
own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses biological 
freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good. These moral bads 
and goods are not just ‘customs’. They are as real as rocks and trees."

I suppose you're confused about the meaning of the term "reification". (Marsha 
has probably misled you on this point.) My dictionary uses just seven words to 
define the term "reify". It is a verb which means, "to make (something 
abstract) more concrete or real". In other words, "reification" is where you 
mistake an abstract concept for an actual thing. This is what James and Pirsig 
say about subjects and objects, that they are not actual things. They are 
abstract concepts that have been mistakenly viewed as ontological realities. 

We don't want to get confused by treating abstract ideas as if they were 
concrete things. But that certainly doesn't mean that it's a mistake to treat 
abstract ideas AS abstract ideas. Ideas are not rocks, but neither is more real 
than the other. 


Platt said:
...In Lila he describes metaphysics as like a menu without food, i.e. 
imaginary. If you want to assuage your hunger by eating the menu, good luck 
with that.

dmb says:
Same thing applies here. It's a mistake to treat a menu as if it were food but 
there is nothing wrong with treating a menu as a menu. The food is not more 
real than the menu. And if you're out for dinner, the menu and the food both 
have a role to play.




                                          
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