[MD] reifying carrots

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha, David, Ian and All --


On Wed, 5/2/12, MarshaV <valkyr at all.net> wrote:


> 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 responded:
> 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?

Ian said:
> Weird - but I just see the two of you violently agreeing again.

Again, folks, the problem is not that carrots and levels aren't "reified", 
intellectualized, and "conventional".  The problem for MOQers is that the 
subject/object "orientation" that Marsha mentioned is fundamental to 
existence and the creation of Value (Quality).  And neither Marsha nor dmb 
can accept this because of Pirsig's doctrine that Quality is the primary 
reality.

If Quality or Value is primary, it must precede existence and generate all 
four evolutionary (objective) levels as well as the (subjective) awareness 
which recognizes and defines them.  This ontology would make Quality itself 
the creator of all patterns and levels that conscious human beings 
conceptualize.

Failure to acknowledge conceptualization as secondary to the self/other 
split puts the cart before the horse, presenting an unsolvable challenge to 
theoretical philosophers.
Dmb argues that both the MOQ and Buddhism reject "what we call the Cartesian 
self" because it is a reified concept.  But if the self is only a reified 
concept, whose concept is it?  Who or what senses the Value of existence and 
does the reifying?

I've previously stated that unrealized value is an epistemological 
absurdity. Without conscious sensibility it would not exist in a relational 
(i.e., "subject-object oriented") context.  And while I remind you that man 
is the agent of value in a pluralistic world, I'm still trying to fathom 
what role humans are expected to play in a universe that moves inexorably 
toward."betterness".

Essentially curious,
Ham