[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[MarshaV]

Steve,

I am not extending the idea of "object" to include all sorts of patterns.
Objectification is a process: "Objectification is the process by which an
abstract concept is treated as if it is a concrete thing or physical object.
In this sense the term is synonym to reification." (Wikipedia)  There are no
independent objects, things-in-themselves, in the MoQ.  I have never said I
supported Bo's SOL, I do agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is the
subject/object level.  I agree with Bo that there should be a Quality Level
above the Intellectual Level that represents unpatterned experience (DQ) and
patterned experience (sq (static patterns of value)).

There is no self, and no independent, inherently existing entities with the
MoQ, unless seen through the subject/object illusion.  Since subjects and
objects do not exist within the MoQ, please explain to me the metaphysical
significance of subjects and objects in this forum?  And please explain to
me RMP's orthodox MoQ?  


Marsha








-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steven Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:27 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL

Hi Marsha,

If you extend the idea of "object" to include all sorts of patterns
and not just biological and intellectual patterns, then I think what
you are saying makes sense. Certainly computer programs use the word
object to refer to concepts.

I don't think what you are saying has much to do with Bo's SOL, but
that works in your favor. For Bo, there is a metaphyical distinction
at work between objective and subjective knowledge that defoines
intellect. I object that there need not be any such distinction
presupposed in all manipulations of symbols, but your argument that
there is an objectification of a sort that must be concordant with
manipulation for there to be anything to manipulate makes sense. The
problem for me is just that subjects and objects have metaphysical
significance in this forum, so we tend to talk about patterns rather
than objects to avoid making ontological claims. Now you are
reclaiming the word object to refer to any pattern used in a thought
process, which is fine with me except for the confusion with Bo's
heretical SOL thesis. Unlike Bo, I think what you are saying sounds
orthodox, i.e, consistent with Pirsig's MOQ.

Best,
Steve





On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I added my original post at the bottom of this one, but let me repeat,
'The
> Intellectual Level is comprised of patterns that represent the process of
> objectifying and manipulating abstract symbols: "Objectification is the
> process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were concrete
> things or physical objects.  In this
> sense the term is synonym to reification."'  This is my description of the
> patterns the inhabit the Intellectual level.  I do not agree that
intellect
> is "simply thinking". There is no 'simply thinking' within  the MoQ; there
> is unpatterned experience (DQ) and patterned experience (sq = static
> patterns of value).
>
> The process of objectifying strips away the subject (self) so that it may
be
> studied or manipulated without an emotional bias, but the very stripping
> away implies the self's existence, and the subject and object are both
there
> by implication.  Subject and object!  When I study about the MoQ, 'I' is a
> separate entity that is study the objectified 'MoQ'.  If I am validating
> through an experiment the existence of a photon, the 'I' validating is
> separated from the objectified entity 'photon'.  Subject and object!!!  I
> acting upon an objectified concept.  And all this 'I' acting upon
> objectified concepts is suppose to represent REALITY.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steven
Peterson
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL
>
> Hi Marsha,
>
> I can't find your message on my computer  to respond more specifically.
>
> I agree that "object" is an intellectual pattern, and I agree that it
> is possible to reify concepts such as love, experience, and good, but
> it doesn't follow that all intellect ever is is reification. If
> intellect is "simply thinking" or using concepts or "manipulating
> abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience," then one of
> the functions of intellect is reification, but it is still just one
> possible way of using concepts or manipulating symbols. Using concepts
> is not necessarily reifying them.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> -------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Marsha
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:51 AM
> To: MoQ
> Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates
>
>
> Steve,
>
> Love, good, and infinity can be objectified and manipulated; that is
> exactly what you did in your paragraphs below.
>
> The Intellect Level is comprised of patterns that represent the
> process of objectifying and manipulating abstract symbols:
> "Objectification is the process by which abstract concepts are
> treated as of they were concrete things or physical objects.  In this
> sense the term is synonym to reification."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/