[MD] reifying carrots

[MarshaV]

Andre, 

Please note, Andre, that your previous post (below) presented nonsense (your misrepresentation) and then dmb's (further misrepresented) reply:

> Marsha, then, was cockahoop about the fact that all intellectual manipulations are reifications acting upon reifications and thereby supporting, I suppose, this weirdo Bodvarian notion that the intellectual level IS SOM!
> 
> I do not need to elaborate the link with what is happening now (I hope!!) but she's found another book and this time by William Waldron, and we are on the reification bandwagon again!!
> 

> Dmb's response (and I have taken sections) then was:
> 
> "If reification was a certainty rather than a tendency, then it would not have been possible for Pirsig to construct the MOQ and it would not be possible for Wallace to warn against it either".

As if I stated something was "certain", which I never did.  You cannot find a quote where I stated anything is "certain".  -  You are like one of those little guys, who need to pump themselves up at other's expense.  

Thanks, but no thanks.  Like I said, your style is more conducive to dmb's project.  You and he make a team and play a game I am not interested in playing.  


Marsha





On May 5, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Andre:
> dmb gave us a list of quotes from both ZMM, LILA and the AHP tapes in an effort to show Marsha the reason why Phaedrus argued for an expansion of rationality AND WHAT THAT EXPANSION OF RATIONALITY ENTAILS.
> 
> The most beautiful example of this expanded rationality is Pirsig's MoQ as unfolded in LILA.
> 
> The saddest thing is that Marsha refuses to accept, nay, she doesn't even see this, feel this , hear this, intuit this.
> 
> Her response is:
> 
> "I [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".
> 
> You see Marsha is on the reification wagon again. Just as she was twelve months ago (!) when she was reading Alan Wallace (Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind).
> 
> She quoted a section which I will not completely reproduce. Only the last sentence will do: "The natural TENDENCY of reification, which we have had since childhood, is extremely DIFFICULT to eradicate from our habits of thinking and perceiving." ( post May 31, 2011)
> 
> Marsha, then, was cockahoop about the fact that all intellectual manipulations are reifications acting upon reifications and thereby supporting, I suppose, this weirdo Bodvarian notion that the intellectual level IS SOM!
> 
> I do not need to elaborate the link with what is happening now (I hope!!) but she's found another book and this time by William Waldron, and we are on the reification bandwagon again!!
> 
> Dmb's response (and I have taken sections) then was:
> 
> "If reification was a certainty rather than a tendency, then it would not have been possible for Pirsig to construct the MOQ and it would not be possible for Wallace to warn against it either".
> 
> "Again, Marsha's incoherent position is like betting cash that cash is no good. She doesn't see the contradiction entailed in using concepts to condemn conceptualization".
> 
> "If reification is a normal part of the conceptualization process then there is no such thing as a concept that isn't inherently erroneous. But, obviously, Pirsig, James and Wallace (and many others) are using concepts to push back against the ABUSE of concepts, against the conceptual error known as reification. The idea here is to put things in perspective, to show what concepts can and cannot do and what they cannot do is give you a key to unlock the riddle of the universe".
> 
> I do not need to continue this stuff. It is clear and plain for all to see the connections, repetitions and therefore regressions.
> 
> But, unfortunately Marsha insists... afterall, as she says: "I am more and more convinced... . And it is a bit like the disappearance act of the 'self' in her mindfulness, because it is HER experience, because it is HER conviction... then it must be true. Not only that. It must be universally true. Pirsig and James, among many, many intelligently acutely sensitive persons are simply wrong...and Marsha absolutely right!
> 
> May I suggest that Marsha has not differentiated her self yet from her mother, surroundings and the universe (as every child goes through realising that whatever IT thinks and feels may NOT be thought or felt by mother, surroundings and the universe...an evolution which takes place between the ages of, say five and nine, more or less continuing through puberty and adolescence [ that's why they are sometimes 'complete bastards' (ZMM)].
> 
> And she keeps on going her merry way to challenge anyone not agreeing with her to justify, rationalise, evidence, peculiarize, memorize, or prioritize. This is going back to the Bodvar's SOLAQI stuff dating back to, what? some twelve years ago?
> 
> Sad, really sad that someone has not learned to appreciate the efforts of Robert M. Pirsig. There must be only one reasonable explanation: Marsha does NOT understand nor intuit ZMM nor LILA. Because she really is perhaps confused about her self (DQ/sq)?
> 
> Peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___