[MD] From Psychology to Empiricism

[MarshaV]

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Mary wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> ...
> 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.
> 
> What you are saying seems in accord with my view.  Would you agree with
> this?
> 
> The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the
> paramount demand is for rational objective knowledge, which denies the
> existence of Quality.

Hi Mary,

Quality being value?  Quality being experience?  Quality as Emptiness?  I 
cannot agree with your "which denies the existence of Quality."   Mr. Pirsig, 
himself, has used intellect to explain the Quality.  My understanding 
of Quality is as unpatterned experience/patterned experience; it is not the 
descriptions or discussions of it.  But maybe if you would elaborate, I might 
have more to consider.   


Marsha 





>> Hi Mary,
>> 
>> Yes, 'concept' is a reified concept too.  In Buddhism, the last word on
>> Emptiness is that 'Emptiness, too, is empty.'  It seems to me that it
>> is presenting the notion that all the talk of emptiness has been a
>> reification, and in the end Emptiness is empty of independent
>> existence, that it cannot be isolated as an independent object of
>> analysis.  Aside from Dynamic Quality, it is all static patterns of
>> value, but I understand the patterns in the Intellectual Level to be
>> reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and
>> manipulation.  Intellectual patterns process from a subject/object
>> conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion
>> of independence, or 'thingness'. 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Mary wrote:
>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Radical Empiricism is a reified concept.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> 
>>> One could add that the concept of 'concepts' is a reified concept
>> too.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Mary
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 3, 2010, at 5:44 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha said:
>>>>> I do miss Bo.  Because he kept the discussion centered on the MoQ's
>>>> being beyond SOM, and the MoQ's understanding transcending
>>>> subject/object metaphysical thinking, and as Wikipedia clearly
>> states:
>>>> "Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy of the Metaphysics of Quality is
>> largely
>>>> concerned with the subject-object problem."  ...And surely you
>> wouldn't
>>>> expect my understanding to change because dmb, Arlo, Ron, Dan or the
>>>> Pope think differently.  My mind doesn't work like that.
>>>> ...Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and
>> the
>>>> rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.  Intellectual
>>>> patterns process from a subject/object conceptual framework creating
>>>> false boundaries that give the illusion of independence, or
>>>> 'thingness'. 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. As far as I know
>>>> intellectual patterns are as I stated above, and
>>>> I have seen no evidence to the contrary.  ..Where is your evidence?
>>>> Let's see you demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not
>> reify
>>>> concepts, that does not create a self involved in analyzing such
>>>> concepts, or does not represent the rules for such manipulation?
>> You
>>>> cannot do it, because the minute you've begun you have divided and
>>>> formed an object and an analyzing self.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This thread began with the evidence you're asking for and those
>>>> quotes from James's biographer were centered on going beyond SOM.
>>>> Pirsig and James are saying that subjects and objects are secondary
>>>> concepts that have been reified. (Where did you ever get the idea
>> that
>>>> intellectual patterns ARE reified by definition? Concepts are not
>> the
>>>> problem, reification is.) Reification is the whole difference
>> between
>>>> SOM and the MOQ. In the former subjects and objects are reified and
>> in
>>>> the latter they are not. In the former they are not just concepts
>> but
>>>> in the latter they are just concepts. Radical empiricism is already
>> a
>>>> demonstration of an intellectual pattern that does not reify
>> concepts.
>>>> I mean, everything you're asking for was already in the initial
>> post.
>>>> Maybe you should read it again, but much more slowly and
>> carefully.dmb
>>>> says:  Yes, Pirsig quotes James on this point and he equates his own
>>>> Quality with James's "pure experience". In his second book Pirsig
>>>> explicitly identifie
>>>> s with James's radical empiricism but he was already saying the same
>>>> thing back in ZAMM.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 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


 
___