[MD] reifying carrots

[david buchanan]

[IG said to Ron]
...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 replied:
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).  ...ALL static patterns are indeed subject-object oriented".... How can you keep defending this Ian?



dmb says:
If we are talking about "static patterns of intellectual quality" then we are talking about the MOQ's expanded intellect, not SOM. SOM is the problem and not least of all because of the way SOM takes subjects and objects as the concrete starting points of reality. The MOQ's intellect takes subjects and objects as secondary concepts, not ontological realities. The MOQ does NOT reify those concepts - or rather, Pirsig explicitly and carefully undoes this reification of subjects and objects and REPLACES that fallacious conceptualization with static patterns of intellectual quality. SOM is the disease and static intellectual quality is the cure. 

But Marsha, despite all the explanations and presentation of the textual evidence, cannot distinguish the disease from the cure. She thinks the cure is the disease. She attacks the medicine as if it were poison. She can't see the relationship between the SOM problem and Pirsig's static quality solution and yet she seems to think she's a deep thinker and/or an enlightened being. Nothing could be further from the truth. Her ideas don't add up and her reaction to criticism is always childishly irresponsible, egotistical and - above all - evasive. Instead of addressing the substance of this complaint, for example, I except Marsha to evade the issue by asking for a definition of "evasive" or to make some other childish bullshit move like that. 

And yes, Ian, it is illogical to use Pirsig's terms (i.e. intellectual patterns) to talk about the very perspective he has rejected (SOM). Since the main point is to replace SOM's rationality with the MOQ's intellectual quality, what could be more confusing than treating those two things as if they were identical or interchangeable? If you do that, you're just showing everybody that you've missed Pirsig's central point.