[MD] expanded rationality & logic traps

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Ron]
A very nice explanation expanding on the problem of this particular logic trap Arlo. Thinking about it I am tempted to include the term "reification" in that type of trap. I am curious as to your own thoughts on the subject.

[Arlo]
Nice to hear from you, Ron.

I agree. Along with thinking its possible to back outside the box, 'reification' is problem arising from S/O thinking. I, personally, don't see 'reificiation' occurring with a MOQ framework, as its central premise denies the primacy of subjects and objects. I do not think that holding stable patterns of value as useful designates within our experiential surround constitutes 'reification'. In other words, that I accept a certain 'stability' in experiencing my motorcycle, which enables me to ride it to work and back, does not mean I am elevating that motorcycle to a primary existent. 

[Ron]
Because when we talk of "The" MoQ we are really talking about a kind of attitude a sort of temprament.

[Arlo]
Personally, I wouldn't use the term this way. A metaphysics is a metaphysics. The 'attitude', or 'care', doesn't need the metaphysical framework per se, Buddhist monks and motorcycle mechanics have been evidencing this attitude for quite some time before LILA was written. So the attitude or temperment is to me more like the aesthetic sensibility, or the pre-intellectual awareness, or 'enthusiasm' (in the ZMM-described sense as 'filled with Quality'). 

So I'd say something like "metaphysiqueing", like sculpting or building rotisseries, is something that can be done with a sense of detattachment or something that can be done with care/identity/enthusiasm/aesthetic/artfulness. Both begin with certain assumptions, and both have certain trajectories in their conclusions.