Mark, You ask a strange question. 'Gravitation' is a word; It may be the name of a cat, dog or horse, or a conceptual theory. At the very least it participates in a linguistic process.
Marsha On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:31 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > Is gravitation a process? > > Mark > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:58 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:25 PM, Mary wrote: >> >>> [dmb] >>> You can't say that reification is "interdependent with the conceptualization >>> process" or simply "conceptualization reifies" AND also say that concepts >>> are necessary to act in the world. >>> >>> [Mary] >>> Why not? >>> >>> The human brain is nothing more than the product of the evolution of >>> Pirsig's static patterns of value. Static patterns of value interact with >>> one another in static ways. It would be a leap to expect the static brain >>> to function in a non-static way, would it not? Conceptualization is no >>> doubt a high quality STATIC pattern of value. It is a useful and necessary >>> tool for interacting with other static patterns. It does not follow that it >>> would be necessary for it to develop transcendence. If it were even a >>> "tendency" of the human mind to flexibly transcend the static, then DQ would >>> not be undefined. Capisce? >>> >> >> HI Mary, >> >> Here is my (conventional/static) definition of static patterns of value: >> >> Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, >> interdependent, ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects. >> Not things-in-themselves.) Overlapping, interconnected, >> ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist >> and change within a stable, predictable pattern. >> >> Here's my (conventional/static) definition of reification: >> >> Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon >> as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an >> impermanent process." >> >> Reification represents how the common man, and many scientists, >> academics and even philosophers conceptualize. It evolved as a tool to >> facilitate some kind of betterness. But it is flawed and of course the MoQ >> and help rectify the flaw. I have suggested that reification is either a >> part >> of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency >> between conceptualization and reification. >> >> But, of course, you are correct Mary. Both 'conceptualization' and >> 'reification' are static patterns of value, conventional (relative) truths. >> >> >> 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 > 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 ___ 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