[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[John Carl]

Ok, I'm not speedy and quick, but slowly I get there.  It's head-snappingly
complicated to wrap one's brain around  objectification vs.
conceptualization...

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 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.
>


Ok, so if I was treating an abstract concept AS an abstract concept and NOT
as a concrete thing or a physical object, then I'm not guilty of
objectifying or reifying, right?   Abstract concepts are intellectually
created and manipulated and "wrong" only when given false physicality.


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)).
>


And in my quest for knowledge, I ask, What does unpatterned experience look
like?  How do you define it?

It almost seems to me a phlogoston-like entity created for the logical
necessity of "patterned experience"... So you've got some "thing" to pattern
things out of.

I've come to think of DQ as a "patterning force" which puts the necessary
positive spin on the world which makes it go 'round.  Love makes the world
go 'round.  If Quality generates "all of it, every single bit", then none of
reality is unpatterned.  You just haven't gotten 'round to patterning it
yet.

See how I am?  It's why for me its simpler just to say, Reality is
Experience.