[MD] reifying carrots

[MarshaV]

Hi Horse,

I understand, but you did write the below post:  

---

Subject:  Re: [MD] Why are things called patterns?
On Mar 10, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Horse wrote:

Marsha

Why do you continue to deliberately and wilfully misinterpret what I have said?

I have not banned anyone from talking about the intellectual level - I merely put a limit on the number of posts per day for discussing the SOLAQI nonsense due to Bo swamping ALL discussions on the subject and refusing to stop being a pain in the arse and I spent a considerable amount of time doing so. In the end Bo threw a hissy fit and removed himself from the discussion because he couldn't have his own way and refused to listen. His stupidity, arrogance and childishness are his problem not mine.

If you check the archives you will see that I did not ban anyone from discussing their interpretation of the Intellectual level so please stop trying to make out that I'm some sort of dictator who bans people and discussions on this forum just because I don't want to hear them or I disagree with what they say.

If I think someone is behaving inappropriately I ask them to stop and if they refuse then I remove them. Simple. It is my job as owner and administrator of this forum to try and keep the discussion to Pirsigs MoQ and if forum members don't like the way I do it then that's too bad.

If you want to discuss your interpretation of the Intellectual level that's fine - however, if you want to discuss SOLAQI (or whatever acronym Bo has decide on) then limit your posts as I have requested. If you're not discussing SOLAQI (or some sort of disguised version of it) then feel free to discuss your ideas - however I would ask that you don't try and tell everyone that Pirsig is an idiot or a traitor to the MoQ or doesn't understand his own ideas etc.

Are we clear now or will I have to repeat myself yet again in a few weeks time?

Horse

--- 

You can hopefully understand my confusion, 


Marsha 








On May 6, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Horse wrote:

> Marsha
> 
> I'll make this short and to the point.
> Your recent postings about reification, conceptualization etc. are no more than a rehash of Bo's Lesser/Greater (and possibly spotted) SOLILOQUY or whatever acronym is currently doing the rounds.
> I wasn't entirely sure about this and initially had my doubts, but after having read what has been said about your idea on the other list, my initial misgivings were confirmed.
> Given that this is little more than a re-hash of Bo's idea that the intellectual level is the level of subjects and objects, it is not something that I wish to continue with. Bo had 10 years or more to convince us of this idea and, for the most part he failed. I do not wish to spend another 10 years going over the same ideas, resulting from the same mistakes that he made so if you wish to discuss it then go and discuss it with him and those that support him but do not continue it here.
> You may not see a problem with it but I do and as I'm running this list and have said in the past that I want nothing more to do with it that should be the end of it.
> Other areas of the Quality/Buddhist systems may well be productive but this certainly isn't.
> This does not come within the realms of Robert Pirsigs MoQ - he has said so quite plainly - and MD is for discussion of Robert Pirsigs MoQ.
> 
> Horse
> 
> On 04/05/2012 18:43, MarshaV wrote:
>> Horse,
>> 
>> "‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is
>> a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy."
>> 
>>   (McWatt, Anthony,'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY', 2005, p.29)
>> 
>> I didn't see a problem with exploring the relationship between static quality and the conceptualization process and the Buddhist conventional reality.  I see conceptualization as an aspect of consciousness.  Are you saying this is off limits too?  Let me know.
>> 
>> I 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
> 
> 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


 
___