[MD] Reifying carrots

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


> I am getting quite tired of being called names because I think outside
> someone else's box.  I don't expect to be told that I am not permitted
> to use the word reification in my definition of the Intellectual Level,
> and I don't expect be told I am an idiot when I determine that truth
> within the MoQ is relative.  And I am sick of being told I am
> anti-intellectual because I think that RMP's "Kill all intellectual 
> patterns.
> Kill them completely"  Is the key to actual awakening to the MoQ's
> highest point-of-view.  Not this, not that. Yes it is my favorite.
> It is my bottom line, and it is past speculation.  It is habit.

Reification is an archaic word for treating an abstraction as a concrete 
thing.  The term is generally used with contemptful or deprecatory intent. 
For example, Karl Marx is said to have stated that representing human beings 
as "commoditiies", such as "the labor force", reifies man by depriving him 
of his individuality or character.

The philosophical equivalent is "hypostasis", which means construing a 
conceptual idea as a real existent.  Since I am a phenomenalist, I prefer 
the simpler verb "objectivize" when referring to experienced phenomena 
(i.e., "patterns" in Pirsig's vernacular).

The problem I have with your concept of intellect is the same one I have 
with that unfortunate Pirsig quote.  If we were to take it seriously--that 
is, "kill" or eliminate all intellectual thought--what do you suppose would 
happen to reasoning from our knowledge of how the world works?  Virtually 
every field related to human advancement would cease, including medical 
research, technology, mathematics, economics, sociology, and the analysis of 
human history.  Learning would literally be impossible, for most of our 
understanding comes from the deductions and inferences that intellection 
affords us.  Moreover, the intellectual function in no way impedes or 
hampers philosophical thought; in fact, intellection is critical for the 
development of philosophy.

Whether or not the "material" world is substantively real is itself an 
intellectual question.  So if it weren't for your intellect, you would not 
be raising the issue.  But even if objective patterns are "neither this nor 
that", are you going to withdraw from existence and live out your life in a 
fantasy world that only you imagine?  That doesn't seem a very practical 
alternative, no matter what your Buddhist gurus tell you.

Our differentiated experience on this planet can teach us much about 
spirituality, relationships, and morality, despite our intellectual 
limitations.  Above all, living in a relational world affords us intimate 
awareness of Value.  I don't know about you, but it is inconceivable to me 
that the splendors of this universe do not point to an order of Reality 
beyond human comprehension.  If I am right, this means that your life, as 
well as mine, has a purpose or destiny that transcends finite existence.  If 
I'm wrong, we have nothing to lose by participating fully in this life with 
high expectations of where it may lead.

Essentially yours,
Ham