[MD] reifying carrots

[X Acto]

Greetings,

How would you differentiate between 'thoughts', 'ideas' & 'thinking' and 'concepts' & 'conceptualizing'?  Can you?  How?  Because it is my understanding that every pattern within the Intellectual Level is a product of the involvement in the conceptualization process and its interdependent involvement in the twin reification of subject and object: dualism.  


Marsha

Greetings,
Because the Intellectual level is the act of reflection apon experience. The customs of reflection depend
on several aspects like culture and language structure for example.
 
But you arent talking about Pirsigs MoQ and his Intellectual level are you.
 
 
..


On May 2, 2012, at 4:14 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 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.
> 
> "Mystification, in the concept of reification, is basic to the sociology of knowledge. Berger and Luckmann (1966, 89f) make a distinction, similar to the Buddhist analysis of self-identity, between two levels of reification, one implicit and unreflective and the other explicit and cultivated. Reification is 
> 
>      the apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were 
>      something else than human products—such as facts of nature, results 
>      of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will... Reification is possible 
>      on both the pretheoretical and theoretical levels of consciousness... 
>      it would be an error to limit the concept of reification to the mental 
>      construction of intellectuals. Reification exists in the consciousness of 
>      the man in the street and, indeed, the latter presence is more practically 
>      significant. It would also be a mistake to look at reification as a perversion 
>      of an originally non-reified apprehension of the social world, a sort of 
>      cognitive fall from grace. On the contrary, the available ethnological and 
>      psychological evidence seems to indicate the opposite, namely, that the 
>      _original apprehension of the social world is highly reified both phylogenetically 
>      and ontogenetically._ (emphasis added) 
> 
> That is to say, consistent with our main thesis, that we know the world by means of our evolved capacities to reify experience into the categories of language and social and cultural life. These are both fundamental and fundamentally obscuring." 
> 
>        (Waldron, William, 'Common Ground, Common Cause')
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html