On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:12 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:57 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> >> >> 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." > > [Arlo] > Are you saying there are "concepts" that are not "intellectual static patterns > of value"? > Marsha: Anthony writes in the The MoQ Textbook: "Static quality refers to anything that can be conceptualized and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy." As much as you'd like to reframe the issue: I am addressing only intellectual static patterns of value. ___ 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
