On 29/12/2010 07:16, MarshaV wrote:
<SNIP>
My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification. The fourth
level is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology, mathematics,
science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function is as reified
concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and manipulation.
Reification decontextualizes. Intellectual patterns process from a
subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the
illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of analysis.” The fourth
level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is
for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any
subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and compulsions in order to
pursue, study and research in an unbiased and rational manner.
The whole point about your reification idea is that it is a fallacy!
That's why it's referred to as 'The Reification Fallacy' - there's a clue there
that it might be a fallacy!
<SNIP>.
But if you want to stick to your misinterpretation of reification then please
answer these questions which I have asked you before but you refused to answer.
We'll start off with these:
Tell me how zero is reified
Tell me how the square root of -1 is reified
Tell me how a hypercube is reified
Tell me how multi-dimensional mathematical concepts in a 3 dimensional world
are reified
Marsha:
I am not going through each item, but instead will state that when these
elements are separated from processes on which they are co-dependent and
presented as independent entities they have become reified. Reification is a
condition that separates self from other, and apprehends phenomena as being
independently existent.
So in other words you can't answer some very simple questions about a
subject which you have spent a great deal of time talking about. And the
reason for that is that all you have done is, basically, wave your arms
about a lot and make general and vague statements. If your idea of
reification has any substance at all then the above questions should be
simplicity itself to answer. Instead you attempt to duck any questions
which may put your ideas to the test, opting instead for more waffling
and arm-waving.
These are specific examples, not generalizations, of questions that need to be
answered if your idea is correct and reification is, indeed, not a fallacy.
Marsha:
You are asking me to disprove a negative. I have intention of defending such a
position. Reification is no more fallacious in its relationship with static
patterns of value than it is with the Buddhist concept of conventional truth.
It represents the conventional way of thinking.
Then stop accusing me of things I haven't done (disprove a negative) and
try and provide answers to the questions I have asked. As far as I can
see it is not possible to reify the concepts of Zero, Sq Rt -1,
Hypercube, Multi-dimensional math constructs. And yet you say that all
concepts are S/O and reifications. So please explain to me, and anyone
else interested - I'll bet there's a few - how these concepts are reified.
These aren't trick questions or some plot to undermine whatever it is
you think I may be doing - I would just like straightforward answers to
straightforward questions.
Are you able to do this? Or will you continue to avoid answering my
questions - questions that I have been asking for some time and which
have always been met with the same refusal to answer.
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
