Marsha said:
... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means removing
and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an object of
analysis.
dmb says:
Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't really
understand what they mean or how they're used. There is a better word for the
meaning you've assign to "decontextualization", for example. If we're talking
about ideas, to remove and isolate for the purpose of analysis is what we call
an "abstraction" or "generalization" or "conceptualization". And it's a very
handy thing. Abstractions and concepts are not reifications. Reification is a
fallacy, an error, the mistake of confusing abstract concepts with concrete
realities. Reification is a matter of confusing thoughts and things, of
mistaking ideas for actual, ontological realities.
And what does "decontextualize" actually mean? It depends on the context.
(Mark's link was irrelevant. Different context, different meaning.) Sadly, you
aren't using "decontextualize" properly even when we consider the original
context from which you apparently took it.
Prof. B. Alan Wallace offers a Centrist view. "Not only does this view reject
the notion that the mind is an inherently existent substance, or thing, but it
similarly denies that physical phenomena as we experience them are things in
themselves." That means he rejects the assumptions of subject-object
metaphysics. Like the MOQ, there is no "substantial dualism between mind and
matter" because "the ways in which we conceive of phenomena are inescapably
related to our concepts and languages". Like James and Pirsig, Wallace "departs
from both the substantial dualism of Descartes and the substantial monism that
seems to be characteristic of modern Materialism, or Physicalism". The article
continuest...
"...Much is made of this difference between appearances and reality. The
Madhyamaka view also emphasizes the disparity between appearances and reality,
but in a radically different way. All the mental and physical phenomena that we
experience, it declares, appear as if they existed in and of themselves,
utterly independent of our modes of perception and conception. They appear to
be things in themselves, but in reality they exist as dependently related
events. Their dependence is threefold: 1) phenomena arise in dependence upon
preceding causal influences, 2) they exist in dependence upon their own parts
and/or attributes, and 3) the phenomena that make up the world of our
experience are dependent upon our verbal and conceptual designation of them.
This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed by
the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of
conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is
quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as
self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification, and
according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that provides the
basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification decontextualizes. It views
phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in which they arise, and without
regard to the specific means of observation and conceptualization by which they
are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist, view is so called because it seeks to
avoid the two extremes of reifying phenomena on the one hand, and of denying
the existence of phenomena on the other."
And here are some ordinary definitions of the key terms....
reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal, make (something
abstract) more concrete or real :
Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction
(abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a
concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of
treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an
idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken
literally, affection would be reified.
Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of
discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended
metaphorically, but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually
regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, "Justice is blind; the blind
cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In
rhetoric, it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used
correctly or incorrectly.
Etymology
From Latin res thing + facere to make, reification can be 'translated' as
thing-making; the turning of something abstract into a concrete thing or object.
abstraction |abˈstrak sh ən|noun1 the quality of dealing with ideas rather than
events • something that exists only as an idea
2 freedom from representational qualities in art
3 a state of preoccupation
4 the process of considering something independently of its associations,
attributes, or concrete accompaniments
5 the process of removing something, esp. water from a river or other source
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin abstractio(n-), from the verb
abstrahere ‘draw away’ (see abstract)
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
