[MD] reifying carrots

[MarshaV]

Hello Ian,


On May 2, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:

> DMB says
> (in response to Marsha reminding us - yet again, for some reason - of
> the limits of intellectual concepts ...)
> "That is profoundly anti-intellectual. If conceptualization is equated
> with reification, then ALL static patterns are wrong and intellect can
> never escape from SOM."
> 
> Weird - but I just see the two of you violently agreeing again.

I don't think dmb and I are saying the same thing at all.   I think all static (patterned) quality is interrelated with the process of conceptualization, which, yes, involves the twin reification of self and other.  This has been, BOTH, a great achievement and leads to "deleterious consequences".  

> It doesn't say "intellect" is necessarily bound by SOMism it says
> intellectual patterns (of reified concepts) are bounded by SOM.

Yes, all patterns, including Intellectual patterns are a product of reification.  With the Intellectual Level recognizing the dichotomy, and as a consequence devaluing the subjective and valuing the objective.


> This seems to be a MoQish truism to me. In fact it's that sticking
> point with Bo's SOLAQI that I could never get through to him (or you).
> We're just arguing about what definition of intellect we're using.

What would be your definition of intellect as opposed the intellectual static patterns of value?   


> We can choose to define an evolving MoQish intellect as more than the
> sum of its static intellectual conceptual patterns - indeed we must.
> (ie it includes all those Jamesian radical empirical processes too.)

I do not consider intellectual patterns as equating to or being solely concepts.  At the very least they may contain percepts.  Einstein, for instance, was a visual thinker and probably relied on visual percepts.  


> It's OK to be anti-SOMish-intellect.
> It's not OK to be anti-a-more-enlightened-MoQish-intellect.
> (whether you / we call it intellect or not.)

And btw, I have no violent agreement or disagreement with dmb.  I could easily ignore him completely.   His attacks are humorous, and show his weakness.

> Ian

Marsha