Hello everyone On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification.
Dan: To reify is to make the abstract real. It would appear (to me) that if the intellectual level is about reification, then I should be able to think and it would be so. Of course we all know this isn't true... even you Marsha have to admit that. Marsha: The fourth level is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. Dan: Intellectual patterns value mathematics, science, and philosophy but they are not comprised of them. Marsha: The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation. Dan: Reified concepts are objects, or according to the MOQ, inorganic and biological patterns of value, but not social and intellectual patterns of value. Marsha: Reification decontextualizes. Dan: "Decontextualize" isn't a word that I am familiar with. I looked it up on dictionary.com but it isn't listed there either. So I assume it is a made-up word that means the opposite of contextualize. So what you seem to be saying is that the intellectual level makes the abstract concrete and independent of context. Is that right? Marsha: 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.” Dan: Intellectual patterns of value are part of the Metaphysics of Quality... they aren't "really" there. They are provisional. They help order reality but they are not reality itself. There are no objective intellectual patterns of value that we can see and they create nothing. Marsha: 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. Dan: You seem to be describing scientific method here, or the subject/object way of viewing reality that Phaedrus rails against in ZMM and LILA. So it appears you are taking the MOQ and using it against itself. If that is incorrect, perhaps you could set me straight. Thank you, Dan PS I don't really expect any answer from you other than more evasion and nonsense, but maybe you will surprise me? 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
