Hi dmb and anyone else interested in this discussion. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:54 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>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. > [Mark] Yes, this is an easy trap to fall into. A concept can be seen as a static framework. It is a useful tool to encourage discussion, but must remain dynamic. It is a step in a staircase. [dmb] > 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. > [Mark] I agree. [dmb] > 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? > [Mark] I think this points to a misunderstanding of a premise, and perhaps an attempt to promote a personal view at the expense of another. There is nothing wrong with this. But, in the long run, the attempt should be to harmonize our understandings in some way. A vegan can add other dishes to the table and expand the experience. It doesn't make sense to force others not to eat meat. > > > > > > > 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 > 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
