[MD] reifying carrots

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

I offer this knowing that Marsha will remain unmoved. But let me say a few words about her anti-intellectualism and the errors that lead her there.  

Marsha said:
I am more and more convinced that conceptualization is the twin reification of self (subject) and other (object).  As such it would say something significant about ALL static patterns from the inorganic level to the intellectual level:  All patterns, all levels - inorganic, biological, social & intellectual - are conventionally, indeed, statically, subject-object oriented.

dmb says:
That is profoundly anti-intellectual. If conceptualization is equated with reification, then ALL static patterns are wrong and intellect can never escape from SOM. If this were true, then Pirsig's MOQ would just another version of this same SOM wrongness. If this were true, it would not be possible to recognize or articulate the concept of reification itself. Do we have any reason to think Pirsig (or James) was doing something impossible when he recognized subjects and objects as concepts rather than as primary ontological categories?

"By this (radical empiricism) he (James) meant that subjects and objects are NOT the starting points of REALITY. Subject and objects are SECONDARY. They are CONCEPTS derived from something more fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories'. In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms wich we make them. Pure Experience cannot be called either physical or psychical; it logically precedes this distinction." (Lila, 364-5)

If there is no way to avoid reification or SOM, then the MOQ cannot deliver on its promises and the Buddha's attempt to show a way out of suffering was quite futile. If intellect is inherently erroneous, then science and philosophy (not to mention truth, honesty, clarity, etc) are just elaborate jokes. If concepts and words are always reifications, then excellence in thought and speech is impossible. If thinking is inherently illusory, then intellect itself is the cause of suffering. This is not just anti-intellectual, it portrays the highest level of static quality as a form of evil!

See how this happens? The MOQ and philosophically sophisticated forms of Buddhism BOTH warn us about the dangers of reification (a.k.a. the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) and they BOTH reject what we call the Cartesian self. In both cases the substantial self is rejected precisely because it is a reified concept. So far, so good. But then Marsha uses the MOQ's critique of SOM's reified self against the MOQ! By equating conceptualization with reification and by equating the MOQ's intellectual level with SOM, she has misconstrued and undermined Pirsig's solution. His alternative to SOM's hollow, empty, amoral intellect is misconstrued and nothing but more hollow, empty, meaninglessness. In other words, Marsha treats Pirsig's cure as if it were the disease. It's upside down and backward. She makes the highest static good into an object of scorn. Satan's lawyer is impressed.






It's almost as if your whole purpose is to distort the MOQ as much as possible. You just don't care whether or not your claims add up or make sense. Any complaints about the misuse of terms or logical contradictions are treated as if they were just somebody's wild-eyed "opinion", as if that sort of thing doesn't matter. Do you fail to make sense because you hate the intellect so much or is the other way around? Which came first, the chicken or the sour grapes?