Marsha: David Buchanan does not know what Marsha thinks.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:54 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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
