dmb,
Yawn... Alan Wallace uses it. He understand. You, I don't expect to
understand.
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> 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
___
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
