[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Horse wrote:

> And you like to hide behind anything that suits your purposes.

---  

> Pirsig specifically rejected Bo's ideas and yet this was either:
> 1) Ignored by you and others or
> 2) Pirsigs rejections are used as supporting evidence against what they specifically reject - I.e. such as when Pirsig says X he really means ~X - he's just too dumb to understand what clever people say.
> So the problem here would be that even if I had a note or an email showing that Pirsig completely and totally rejected your ideas - you would either ignore what he says or say that he really agrees with you - he's just too dumb to realise it! This is what Bo did and this is how you supported Bo. So, if we're going down the evidential road you need to find something that shows that Pirsig specifically supports what you say. That way you can use it as evidence that Pirsig supports you. Do you have anything?

Marsha:  
I admire Bo for the tenacious challenge he offered to som thinking.  I agree that Bo is correct in his determination that the Intellectual Level has at its base a subject/object framework, but please note my explanation starts "My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification."   Here it is again:

My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification. The fourth level  is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.  Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.”  The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner. 


> The whole point about your reification idea is that it is a fallacy!
> That's why it's referred to as 'The Reification Fallacy' - there's a clue there that it might be a fallacy!

Marsha:
In the MoQ Textbook it clearly documents the relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism.  It is the relationship between these two that I have been exploring.  In the MoQ Textbook it also states that static quality corresponds to the Buddhist's notion of conventional truth.  Reification is a central theme in Buddhism for describing a major condition attributed to conventional truths.  I have offered numerous quotes by Buddhist scholars explaining how it works and examples of its use.  (See Reifying carrots thread.)  The quote I think fits most appropriately is from a review of the book ‘Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground’:

"How do we deal with the complexity of experience? Well, we 'seek and find, or project, a simplifying pattern to approximate every complex field ... by lumping (ignoring some distinctions as negligible) and by splitting (ignoring some relations as negligible). Both ... create discreet entities useful for manipulating, predicting and controlling ... [but] may impose ad hoc boundaries on what are actually densely interconnected systems and then grant autonomous existence to the segments. Even the contents of our own consciousness have to be dealt with in this way, resulting in our array of fragmented self-concepts, and we just put up with the anomalies that arise. Buddhism, he explains, agrees that discovering entities is conventionally indispensable, but attachment and aggression arise through reifying them, which violates the principle that all things are interdependent, and all entities are conditional approximations."
     (http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/buddhism_and_science.html)

Rather than labeled a fallacy, reification might be better understood as a common habit of of consciousness resulting in conventional truths/static quality.  Human's seem to have evolved a habitual tendency towards reification.   
   

> But if you want to stick to your misinterpretation of reification then please answer these questions which I have asked you before but you refused to answer.
> We'll start off with these:
> Tell me how zero is reified
> Tell me how the square root of -1 is reified
> Tell me how a hypercube is reified
> Tell me how multi-dimensional mathematical concepts in a 3 dimensional world are reified

Marsha:
I am not going through each item, but instead will state that when these elements are separated from processes on which they are co-dependent and presented as independent entities they have become reified.  Reification is a condition that separates self from other, and apprehends phenomena as being independently existent.  


> These are specific examples, not generalizations, of questions that need to be answered if your idea is correct and reification is, indeed, not a fallacy.

Marsha:
You are asking me to disprove a negative.  I have intention of defending such a position.   Reification is no more fallacious in its relationship with static patterns of value than it is with the Buddhist concept of conventional truth.   It represents the conventional way of thinking.  



Marsha 







> 
> Horse
> 
> P.S. And if you don't feel able to answer my questions today, there's plenty of time tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/12/2010 15:32, MarshaV wrote:
>> Horse,
>> 
>> So the best you can do is answer the question with a question???
>> 
>> Since RMP has never been asked about my interpretation of the Intellectual
>> Level, my interpretation being based on reification, the answer is obviously no.
>> But you have no evidence that he rejects the reification interpretation either.
>> 
>> Well that's if for today because there is some kind of limit on the number of posts
>> per day I can make on this subject.
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Horse wrote:
>> 
>>> Do you have something to show that Pirsig supports either your or Bo's ideas.
>>> 
>>> On 28/12/2010 15:09, MarshaV wrote:
>>>> Hi Horse,
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have some letter or post on RMP's opinion on reification?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Horse wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> P.P.S.  No he wasn't - no-one could have got it more wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> P.P.P.S. Except possibly about reification and the Intellectual level.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Horse
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28/12/2010 14:34, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>>  p.s.   Bo was correct...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 


 
___