Reification is a conceptual error. Reification is the mistake of confusing a concept and a thing, of taking an abstraction for an "independent entity".
But Marsha thinks reification is just any kind of conceptualization. In the same way that she conflates the intellectual level with the flaw in dualistic science, she conflates a conceptual error with conceptualization itself. And when you do that, all conceptualizations are erroneous whether they have been confused with objective entities or not. When you do that, mistaking thoughts for things has to be given another name because reification no longer refers to that conceptual error because anybody who thinks about anything in any way is reifying. It's hard to imagine what could be more intellectually paralyzing or how a thinker could get more stuck. Again, the conclusions have disastrous consequences and it doesn't make any sense in the first place. On top of that, this misunderstanding of the nature of reification would keep anyone from seeing what radical empiricism does to subjects and objects. Pirsig and James are both saying that it is a mistake to believe that subjects and objects are "independent entities". They say instead that subjects and objects are concepts, not things. As concepts, their fine most of the time and in fact we mistake them for concrete realities because they work so well AS concepts. They are abstracted from experience and they function in experience and using such abstractions successfully is just what we mean by intellectual quality, by truth. The problem is assuming that subjects and objects are the metaphysical starting points of reality. That's reification. That's a conceptual error. An d the idea is to correct that error, not to denigrate or abandon concepts as such. All of this raises a question, I think. How many ways can Marsha find to hate the intellect? Is there anything that Marsha can't construe as anti-intellectualism? And why would anybody with that kind of attitude want to hang out in a philosophical discussion group? Isn't that a bit like a vegan hanging out at pig roast? If that's how you roll, then isn't this just about the last place you'd want to be? > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 06:29:34 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] spirituality > > > M: > "The Buddhist view does not, however, exclude the possibility of the > unfolding of the world. Obviously the phenomena we all see around us aren't > nonexistent, but if we examine _how_ they exist, then we soon see that they > can't be viewed as a set of independent entities, each with its own > existence. Thus, phenomena exist only as a dream, an illusion or mirage. > Like mirror images, they can clearly be seen, but have no separate existence. > Nagarjuna, the great second-century Indian philosopher, said, "The nature of > phenomena is that of mutual dependence; in themselves, phenomena are nothing > at all." Their evolution is neither random nor fixed by divine intervention. > Instead, they follow the laws of cause and effect in a global > interdependence and reciprocal causality. The problem of an "origin" comes > about only from a belief in the absolute reality of phenomena and the > existence of space and time. > > "In terms of absolute truth, there is no creation, no duration, and no > end. The paradox is a good illustration of the illusory nature of the world > of phenomena. It can reveal itself in an infinite number of ways because its > final reality is emptiness. In terms of the relative truth of appearances, > we say that the conditioned world, called samsara, is "without beginning" > because each state must have caused by the previous one. So, with the Big > Bank theory, do we have an _ex nihilo_ creation, a creation out of > nothingness, or the expression of some kind of preexisting potential that is > not yet manifested in the universe? Is it seen as a real beginning, or as a > stage in the universe's evolution?" > > > 'Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to > the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet',p.29) > > > ___ > > > 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
