> > On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:25 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >> >>> [Arlo had asked] >>> Just out of curiosity, do you think there are such things as "unreified >>> concepts"? >>> >>> [Marsha] >>> I am not opposed to reification; it's a very useful intellectual tool. >>> >>> [Arlo] >>> If you answered the above question, I missed it. Do you think there >>> are "unreified concepts"? And if not, why not just say "concepts"? >> >> >> Marsha: >> Not "unreified' intellectual static (concepts) patterns of value. >> > > [Arlo] > So if you think all concepts are reified, why do you say "reified concepts"? > Why not just say "concepts"? > > Do you think Pirsig's ideas, "the MOQ", are concepts?
Marsha: I am addressing only intellectual static patterns of value. Nowhere did I address "all concepts." My interpretation of the Intellectual static patterns of value in the Fourth Level is based on reification. The fourth level is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” 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 like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. ___ 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
