Mary, I think you are brilliant, insightful and eloquent. Beautiful post!
Marsha On May 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Mary wrote: > 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
