[MD] Intellectual Level

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:


Platt aid to Horse:
All words, numbers, punctuation and other aspects of language are imaginary symbols, imaginary meaning "not real.  ...The word "Objects" is an imaginary symbol. The words "a rock", "a plant" and "a pig" are all imaginary symbols. If this doesn't answer your questions, I don't know what will.

dmb says:
Huh? In what sense are symbols not real? Are we not communicating by way of symbols right now? 
One of the major points in Pirsig's work is that things of real value are dismissed as merely subjective, as unreal or imaginary. The MOQ's attack on SOM is aimed at that kind of dismissal. The moral codes rest on the premise that customs, morals and ideas are as real as rocks and trees.

"We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good. These moral bads and goods are not just ‘customs’. They are as real as rocks and trees."

I suppose you're confused about the meaning of the term "reification". (Marsha has probably misled you on this point.) My dictionary uses just seven words to define the term "reify". It is a verb which means, "to make (something abstract) more concrete or real". In other words, "reification" is where you mistake an abstract concept for an actual thing. This is what James and Pirsig say about subjects and objects, that they are not actual things. They are abstract concepts that have been mistakenly viewed as ontological realities. 

We don't want to get confused by treating abstract ideas as if they were concrete things. But that certainly doesn't mean that it's a mistake to treat abstract ideas AS abstract ideas. Ideas are not rocks, but neither is more real than the other. 


Platt said:
...In Lila he describes metaphysics as like a menu without food, i.e. imaginary. If you want to assuage your hunger by eating the menu, good luck with that.

dmb says:
Same thing applies here. It's a mistake to treat a menu as if it were food but there is nothing wrong with treating a menu as a menu. The food is not more real than the menu. And if you're out for dinner, the menu and the food both have a role to play.