[MD] Keep on ...

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
...You can see here [Plato believed that these ideas are eternal and vastly superior to their manifestations in the world] what James meant by "reifying" the concept of a circle and "denigrating" the actual experiential reality of circles.

Mary replied:
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?

dmb says:
What? Your meaning is far from clear but...
The MOQ says that subjects and objects are concepts derived from experience. The MOQ opposes and corrects the reification of those concepts. This is the means by which the MOQ defeats SOM. From this point of view, actual experiential reality is NOT experience OF material reality. Material reality is an idea derived from actual experience. The subjective self is also an idea derived from actual experience. When we treat these ideas AS ideas, as opposed to the ontological realities that make experience possible, then they are no longer reified, no longer taken as the starting points of reality. 

Mary said:
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?

dmb says:
Nope. That makes no sense.
It's important to understand the relationship between concepts and reality, between ideas and experience. I mean, the MOQ is very, very empirical. It says all concepts (sq) are derived from experience (DQ) and the point and purpose of our ideas (sq) is to function within experience (DQ). In the MOQ, static quality and Dynamic Quality TOGETHER constitute reality. The truth and merit of a concept is measured in terms of the idea's agreement with empirical reality, with experience itself.
In SOM, truth is a matter of correspondence between the concept and the thing conceived. In the MOQ truth is still a kind of agreement with reality but reality is not objective or material and the so-called "thing" is itself a concept. In the MOQ, reality is experience itself, not experience OF things-in-themselves. Even within the MOQ, however, experience itself does offer constraints and resistances. This feature of experience is what gives rise to the concept of material things in the first place. Experience gives rise to ideas of things that cut and bruise, that have to be crossed and climbed and overcome with effort. And for millions of practical purposes those ideas work quite well. They agree with experience and help to guide our experience. Or when they don't, we go look for a better truth.
But that new idea will have to function in experience too. The alternative idea will have to agree with the same constraints and resistances as they are lived and felt and known in experience. There is room for multiple truths, more than one way to successfully conceptualize any given area of experience, but that certainly doesn't mean that any idea is just as true as another. Some concepts are going to get you into very hot water, lead you into confusion and frustration and maybe even real danger. True ideas are the ones we can "ride", that can take us where we want to go. False ideas will make us crash and burn, sometimes even literally. Therefore, it's not all good. And it's important to develop a sense of Quality, regardless of whether you're fixing a bike or talking about philosophical ideas. Either way, hacks and idiots will have you broken down by the side of the road.
Truth is a species of the good. It is a high quality intellectual pattern. What's not to love? When intellectualism is NOT vicious, it's wonderful and awesomely successful. As James and Pirsig both point out, it is this marvelous success that makes it so damn convincing and which led to the deification of concepts in the first place! But the attack on this hyper-rationalism, on this vicious abstractionism should not be taken as a mirror image of this mistake. I mean, let's not replace the deification with a demonization. To say that the intellect is NOT divine is not to say the intellect IS evil. It is neither angel nor devil. It's an evolved tool with limits. It's one thing to say the intellect cannot unlock the riddle of the universe. It's quite another to say intellectualization always reifies or falsifies everything. That's the demonization I'm talking about.