[MD] reifying carrots

[X Acto]

Marsha, Ron, Ham, etc ...

Funnily Ron, I think Marsha is
"talking about the intellectual level"
when she says intellect ...
and highlights its limitations

Ron:
She highlights its limitaions as THE way the intellectual level is defined.
She is making a case for Bodvars point of view by citing Buddhism
as a refferential support for this point of view.
It's difficult to see how this was missed.

Ian:
And she does say in her last response to dmb - that the debate is
indeed about the definition of intellect (we are using) ... so to try
to answer that.

Ron:
I have answered that. In fact Ian you seem to believe that there is indeed a distinction between
"definition" and "meaning". I side that there is little if no distinction. Definition is meaning.
 So to say that what we are argueing
about is definition not meaning I think you couldn't be farther from it. You most likely
do not see this, because you really did'nt see my comments as addressing  it.

Ian:
The kind of intellect limited to a level of static patterns is indeed
limited to being about subjects and objects (as Ham and Bo and Marsha
have kept reminding us).

Ron:
Then you are not getting the reservations and the consequences involved in this point of view.
It's not the way Pirsig elaborates on when he speaks of the expansion of reason.


Ian:
Which is why I have always called this GOF-Intellect - an old
fashioned idea of limited usefulness.

But intellect (we MOQers all really know and experience in best use of
our human minds)
is / can be / ought to be much more than this. (Again I really don't
care whether we call it intellect or not, but it's more than
GOF-Intellect.)

Ron:
But thats not what Marsha is proposing Ian. Curious Ian exactly how, given what
you just stated, is the intellectual level to be/is/can be/ought to be much more than 
static intellectual patterns of reification Marsha states they are,or can ever be?
That is the arguement Ian, so try to answer that.


..