[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[MarshaV]

On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:12 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:57 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:25 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
>>> 
>>>> [Arlo had asked]
>>>> Just out of curiosity, do you think there are such things as "unreified concepts"?
>>>> 
>>>> [Marsha]
>>>> I am not opposed to reification; it's a very useful intellectual tool.
>>>> 
>>>> [Arlo]
>>>> If you answered the above question, I missed it. Do you think there
>>>> are "unreified concepts"? And if not, why not just say "concepts"? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Not "unreified' intellectual static (concepts) patterns of value.  
>>> 
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> So if you think all concepts are reified, why do you say "reified concepts"?
>> Why not just say "concepts"? 
>> 
>> Do you think Pirsig's ideas, "the MOQ", are concepts?
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I am addressing only intellectual static patterns of value.  Nowhere did I 
> address "all concepts."  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Are you saying there are "concepts" that are not "intellectual static patterns
> of value"?
> 

Marsha:

Anthony writes in the The MoQ Textbook:  "Static quality refers to anything that can be conceptualized and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy."

As much as you'd like to reframe the issue:  I am addressing only intellectual static patterns of value.  
 
 

 
___