[MD] Keep on ...

[MarshaV]

Mary,

I think you are brilliant, insightful and eloquent.  Beautiful post!


Marsha 



On May 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Mary wrote:

> Two unrelated comments.  One about how the Greeks constructed the
> necessary precondition for monotheism while amidst a multitude of
> gods; the other a contrast between false values and false objects.
> 
> [DMB]
> ...the ideal form of a circle is a perfect circle, something that is
> physically impossible to make manifest, yet the circles that we draw
> and observe clearly have some idea in common — this idea is the ideal
> form. Plato believed that these ideas are eternal and vastly superior
> to their manifestations in the world, and that we understand these
> manifestations in the material world by comparing and relating them to
> their respective ideal form.
> 
> [Mary]
> With Plato, then, germinated the necessary preconditions for
> monotheistic religion; for without an ideal that transcends observed
> reality then the multitude of capricious gods would suffice.
> 
> [DMB]
> ...You can see here what James meant by "reifying" the concept of a
> circle and "denigrating" the actual experiential reality of circles.
> 
> [Mary]
> I am struck that there is such concern over the difference between
> reifying a concept and denigrating 'actual' experiential reality since
> both have the same result.  Both require belief in the 'existence' of
> something in a false context - in this case, as we know, a
> subject-object context.  This is a concern for those who observe the
> world out there with their mind in here and strenuously object to
> equating the two.  It is valid to object to equating 'reifying a
> concept' to 'actual experienced reality' if you believe there is an
> actual 'material' reality to be experienced 'out there'.
> 
> The platypi are multiplying.  Perhaps we agree?
> 
> Concern for the 'falseness' of a reification is only so if one is
> convinced utterly of the 'truthness' of material reality.  In this
> situation the two are starkly at odds and cannot be equated.  This is
> as it should be, even within the MoQ.
> 
> But if 'reality' is understood to consist only of patterns of value,
> have you ever concerned yourself with false patterns of value?  Can't
> be done because everything is a pattern of value, and there are no
> 'false' ones.  Is it possible to reify a pattern of value?  Yes.
> subject-object metaphysics requires it, unable to see that the
> reification itself is but one more pattern of value.
> 
> Therefore, it's all good.  Does that make sense?
> 
> Best,
> Mary
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
> ...
> 









 
___