p.s. I have even read the term 'reificationism' used as one of the two extremes that Nagarjuna and RMP push back against. On May 1, 2011, at 1:51 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> > Marsha: > Speaking of "Please notice" I have noticed that you have expanded your > understanding of 'reify' beyond the 7-word sentence found in some dictionary > that you insisted upon last December. Good job! > > > > On May 1, 2011, at 1:25 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do >> not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist. >> The first statement makes a negative claim about the nature of things. It >> qualifies the existence of things by denying that they are permanent or >> essential or that they exist in isolation from each other, that they are >> discrete, discontinuous entities in themselves. The second statement simply >> denies any kind of existence at all. The first statement pushes back against >> Platonism, essentialism, objectivity and other forms of reification. The >> second statement far more drastic, maybe even ridiculous. The aspirin I'm >> about to take may not have anything like an independent or inherent >> existence but I fully expect that it really will relieve my pain. And I stop >> at red lights too, despite the fact that it's JUST a conventional reality. >> We can reject the metaphysical premise behind scientific materialism and >> still be afraid whenever anyone ever points a gun at us. There are concrete >> realities and practical consequences that can't just be sweep under the rug, >> or shrugged off with a s > ce >> tic indifference. The MOQ is not some magic chant that makes the world >> dissolve into misty dreams. >> Yes, the mysticism and the Zen are very, very important central elements. >> But it's also about fixing things and the good cuts of meat. It's also a >> form of pragmatism that says our normal, conventional reality cannot >> function without quality. Remember that thought experiment in ZAMM wherein >> Pirsig takes us through a grocery store with no quality and how drastically >> that was changed? The title of ZAMM is just about enough to let you know >> that it's aimed at a kind of re-enchantment of the ordinary, finding the >> Buddha in the gears of bike or, as James would put it, returning philosophy >> to the earth of things. It is decidedly NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? >> Even its mysticism is NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? And what other >> reality do we ever have? I think it would be best to reject the existence of >> reality as we understand it conventionally and conceptually only between >> meals and never while you're driving. >> >>> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:58 -0400 >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will >>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not >>>> inherently exist. >>> >>> >>> Steve: >>> The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences >>> (patterns of value). Locating such preferences in a subject is an >>> inference from the preferences, so the subject borrows any existence >>> it can be thought of as having from the patterns of preference from >>> which it is inferred. There is no "I" that stands out side of patterns >>> of value (except for the capacity for patterns to change). In other >>> words, what you are (and what a rock or tree or thunderstorm is) is >>> collection of likes and dislikes, loves and hates, desires and >>> aversions. When you peal that onion there is only emptiness (DQ). ___ 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
