On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Horse wrote:
> And you like to hide behind anything that suits your purposes.
---
> Pirsig specifically rejected Bo's ideas and yet this was either:
> 1) Ignored by you and others or
> 2) Pirsigs rejections are used as supporting evidence against what they
> specifically reject - I.e. such as when Pirsig says X he really means ~X -
> he's just too dumb to understand what clever people say.
> So the problem here would be that even if I had a note or an email showing
> that Pirsig completely and totally rejected your ideas - you would either
> ignore what he says or say that he really agrees with you - he's just too
> dumb to realise it! This is what Bo did and this is how you supported Bo. So,
> if we're going down the evidential road you need to find something that shows
> that Pirsig specifically supports what you say. That way you can use it as
> evidence that Pirsig supports you. Do you have anything?
Marsha:
I admire Bo for the tenacious challenge he offered to som thinking. I agree
that Bo is correct in his determination that the Intellectual Level has at its
base a subject/object framework, but please note my explanation starts "My
interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification." Here it is
again:
My interpretation of the Intellectual 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.
> The whole point about your reification idea is that it is a fallacy!
> That's why it's referred to as 'The Reification Fallacy' - there's a clue
> there that it might be a fallacy!
Marsha:
In the MoQ Textbook it clearly documents the relationship between the MoQ and
Buddhism. It is the relationship between these two that I have been exploring.
In the MoQ Textbook it also states that static quality corresponds to the
Buddhist's notion of conventional truth. Reification is a central theme in
Buddhism for describing a major condition attributed to conventional truths. I
have offered numerous quotes by Buddhist scholars explaining how it works and
examples of its use. (See Reifying carrots thread.) The quote I think fits
most appropriately is from a review of the book ‘Buddhism and Science: Breaking
New Ground’:
"How do we deal with the complexity of experience? Well, we 'seek and find, or
project, a simplifying pattern to approximate every complex field ... by
lumping (ignoring some distinctions as negligible) and by splitting (ignoring
some relations as negligible). Both ... create discreet entities useful for
manipulating, predicting and controlling ... [but] may impose ad hoc boundaries
on what are actually densely interconnected systems and then grant autonomous
existence to the segments. Even the contents of our own consciousness have to
be dealt with in this way, resulting in our array of fragmented self-concepts,
and we just put up with the anomalies that arise. Buddhism, he explains, agrees
that discovering entities is conventionally indispensable, but attachment and
aggression arise through reifying them, which violates the principle that all
things are interdependent, and all entities are conditional approximations."
(http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/buddhism_and_science.html)
Rather than labeled a fallacy, reification might be better understood as a
common habit of of consciousness resulting in conventional truths/static
quality. Human's seem to have evolved a habitual tendency towards reification.
> But if you want to stick to your misinterpretation of reification then please
> answer these questions which I have asked you before but you refused to
> answer.
> We'll start off with these:
> Tell me how zero is reified
> Tell me how the square root of -1 is reified
> Tell me how a hypercube is reified
> Tell me how multi-dimensional mathematical concepts in a 3 dimensional world
> are reified
Marsha:
I am not going through each item, but instead will state that when these
elements are separated from processes on which they are co-dependent and
presented as independent entities they have become reified. Reification is a
condition that separates self from other, and apprehends phenomena as being
independently existent.
> These are specific examples, not generalizations, of questions that need to
> be answered if your idea is correct and reification is, indeed, not a fallacy.
Marsha:
You are asking me to disprove a negative. I have intention of defending such a
position. Reification is no more fallacious in its relationship with static
patterns of value than it is with the Buddhist concept of conventional truth.
It represents the conventional way of thinking.
Marsha
>
> Horse
>
> P.S. And if you don't feel able to answer my questions today, there's plenty
> of time tomorrow.
>
>
>
>
> On 28/12/2010 15:32, MarshaV wrote:
>> Horse,
>>
>> So the best you can do is answer the question with a question???
>>
>> Since RMP has never been asked about my interpretation of the Intellectual
>> Level, my interpretation being based on reification, the answer is obviously
>> no.
>> But you have no evidence that he rejects the reification interpretation
>> either.
>>
>> Well that's if for today because there is some kind of limit on the number
>> of posts
>> per day I can make on this subject.
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Horse wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have something to show that Pirsig supports either your or Bo's
>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2010 15:09, MarshaV wrote:
>>>> Hi Horse,
>>>>
>>>> Do you have some letter or post on RMP's opinion on reification?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Horse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> P.P.S. No he wasn't - no-one could have got it more wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.P.P.S. Except possibly about reification and the Intellectual level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horse
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/12/2010 14:34, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>> p.s. Bo was correct...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>>
___
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
