[MD] reifying carrots

[118]

Well, I only have one thing to add for this whole SOM debacle.

How does one point to SOM?  That is, what is the place outside of SOM
that one is using to describe SOM?  This whole idea of debating SOM is
pretty silly if you ask me.  The same goes for using the term reified
to describe conceptual.  This gets so incestuous that I feel like I am
in the swamp country, with Darrel Darrel and Darrel.

If all intellectual patterns are a process of reification, how do we know?
If the intellect escapes from SOM, then where does it go?
If reification is not a pattern, then what is it?
If there is a twin reification going on, then what is doing it?

Can a mathematician use numbers to point to what math is made of?
Can SOM be used to describe SOM?
Can the intellectual describe what is outside the intellectual?
Can the reified be unreified through reification?
Does the conceptual exist outside of reification?
Does reification exist outside the conceptual?

Can a weasel catch its own tail when running around a tree?
Can a snake eat itself until it disappears?
Can a Democrat spend the country out of debt?

Stop talking nonsense.
Here are the four serious philosophical questions (a la Watts)
1. Who started it?
2. Are we going to make it?
3. Where are we going to put it?
4. Who's going to clean up?
5. Is it serious?

According to Camus (Myth of Sisyphus) there is only one question:
whether or not to commit suicide. Sounds like you guys are debating
this question.

The only thing deleterious that I can see is taking this whole thread
seriously.  C'mon guys, let's get real!  You are all getting your
knickers in a twist over twisted knickers!

Mark (the wise one who wears briefs)

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