Ian, Bo has never approved of my interpretation.
Your interpretation doesn't change mine. Marsha On Dec 31, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > No Marsha, you (and Bo) would be correct if the "is" in your first 4 > or 5 sentences was replaced with "was originally distinguished by > being". > > By using the static word "is" rather than the dynamic process of > "becoming" you are committing the reification yourself. Unnecessarily > IMHO. > > Ian > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> p.s. Bo was correct... >> >> >> >> On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:32 AM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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
