Two unrelated comments. One about how the Greeks constructed the necessary precondition for monotheism while amidst a multitude of gods; the other a contrast between false values and false objects.
[DMB] ...the ideal form of a circle is a perfect circle, something that is physically impossible to make manifest, yet the circles that we draw and observe clearly have some idea in common — this idea is the ideal form. Plato believed that these ideas are eternal and vastly superior to their manifestations in the world, and that we understand these manifestations in the material world by comparing and relating them to their respective ideal form. [Mary] With Plato, then, germinated the necessary preconditions for monotheistic religion; for without an ideal that transcends observed reality then the multitude of capricious gods would suffice. [DMB] ...You can see here what James meant by "reifying" the concept of a circle and "denigrating" the actual experiential reality of circles. [Mary] I am struck that there is such concern over the difference between reifying a concept and denigrating 'actual' experiential reality since both have the same result. Both require belief in the 'existence' of something in a false context - in this case, as we know, a subject-object context. This is a concern for those who observe the world out there with their mind in here and strenuously object to equating the two. It is valid to object to equating 'reifying a concept' to 'actual experienced reality' if you believe there is an actual 'material' reality to be experienced 'out there'. The platypi are multiplying. Perhaps we agree? Concern for the 'falseness' of a reification is only so if one is convinced utterly of the 'truthness' of material reality. In this situation the two are starkly at odds and cannot be equated. This is as it should be, even within the MoQ. But if 'reality' is understood to consist only of patterns of value, have you ever concerned yourself with false patterns of value? Can't be done because everything is a pattern of value, and there are no 'false' ones. Is it possible to reify a pattern of value? Yes. subject-object metaphysics requires it, unable to see that the reification itself is but one more pattern of value. Therefore, it's all good. Does that make sense? Best, Mary On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > ... 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
