[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

Hi Horse,
  
I know very little knowledge of multi-dimensional math constructs.  You'd be better able to identify their severed co-dependencies better than I.   At the very least they must be dependent on a consciousness to construct them. 

You haven't answered my first question:  Do you have some letter or post on RMP's opinion on reification?  


Marsha  



On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Horse wrote:

> On 29/12/2010 07:16, MarshaV wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> 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!
>> <SNIP>.
>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> So in other words you can't answer some very simple questions about a subject which you have spent a great deal of time talking about. And the reason for that is that all you have done is, basically, wave your arms about a lot and make general and vague statements. If your idea of reification has any substance at all then the above questions should be simplicity itself to answer. Instead you attempt to duck any questions which may put your ideas to the test, opting instead for more waffling and arm-waving.
> 
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
> 
> Then stop accusing me of things I haven't done (disprove a negative) and try and provide answers to the questions I have asked. As far as I can see it is not possible to reify the concepts of Zero, Sq Rt -1, Hypercube, Multi-dimensional math constructs. And yet you say that all concepts are S/O and reifications. So please explain to me, and anyone else interested - I'll bet there's a few - how these concepts are reified.
> These aren't trick questions or some plot to undermine whatever it is you think I may be doing - I would just like straightforward answers to straightforward questions.
> Are you able to do this? Or will you continue to avoid answering my questions - questions that I have been asking for some time and which have always been met with the same refusal to answer.
> 
> 
> Horse
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
> 
> 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


 
___