[MD] reifying carrots

[X Acto]

#4 for today
 
> 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.

[IG] Again that is my point. Intellectual patterns of this kind are a
reification - by definition. Intellect (good mind behaviors) isn't
necessarily. The reason that sounds "illogical" is simply because we
are using the same term intellect to refer to quite different mind
behaviours. The reifying kind (classic rational) I call GOF-Intellect.
The future is MoQ-Intellect ...

Ron:
Again, This is not what Marsha is proposing. To concieve is to reify.
To think, to percieve is to reify. This is what she is becoming more and
more convinced of....see below the statement taken issue with..
 
Marsha 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."
 
"ALL static patterns are indeed subject-object oriented".... How can you keep defending this Ian?
 
Is it the fact that she is calling it "conventional"?
 
..
 
 
 
 
...
 
 
 
 
 
..