On May 15, 2011, at 11:24 AM, MarshaV wrote:
Or, Mark, here's something I posted last September 9th: "The section on cognitive science includes a very stimulating paper by the neuropsychologist David Galin. He engages thoroughly with Buddhist ideas on self, being cheerfully prepared to challenge them without being dismissive. It is well worth breasting the current of his sociological jargon for the sake of several gem-like insights on the human mind. How do we deal with the complexity of experience? Well, we 'seek and find, or project, a simplifying pattern to approximate every complex field ... by lumping (ignoring some distinctions as negligible) and by splitting (ignoring some relations as negligible). Both ... create discreet entities useful for manipulating, predicting and controlling ... [but] may impose ad hoc boundaries on what are actually densely interconnected systems and then grant autonomous existence to the segments' (p. 108). Even the contents of our own consciousness have to be dealt with in this way, resulting in our array of fragmented self-concepts, and we just put up with the anomalies that arise. Buddhism, he explains, agrees that discovering entities is conventionally indispensable, but attachment and aggression arise through reifying them, which violates the principle that all things are interdependent, and all entities are conditional approximations." http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/buddhism_and_science.html > Mark, > > I see reification as a tool too. But as dmb says that James says, > "Intellectualism becomes vicious, he said, when concepts are reified, deified > and the empirical reality from which they were abstracted in the first place > is denigrated as less than real." > > > Marsha > > > > > On May 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> Okay... >> >> I don't remember using my statements as a whip to beat you. >> These are merely words. You definitely use a eclectic bunch >> of words. You can always ignore mine. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On May 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> The purpose of MoQ (imo) is to provide awareness of the traps >>> presented. If the cage is seen as such, one can move beyond it. >>> Reification, as you use it, is a tool. We could consider the computer >>> to be a cage, but many do not. The separation you mention can be >>> destroyed through MoQ. >>> Mark >>> >>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:46 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And in this reification process, it is that cage wall that creates >>>> separation between the phenomenon/concept and the self when an image, >>>> construct or definition is erected and assigned. imho >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me this quote represents reification, where the cage of a definition >>>>> excludes context, intuition and heart. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> RMP: >>>>>> >>>>>> "... The definition is a cage... You set limits on what a word is. You >>>>>> set limits on what your experience is. And those limits, which you set >>>>>> in order that you can manipulate these words, are also a cage for that >>>>>> word. It can't go beyond it one way or another." >>>>>> >>>>>> ('The MOQ at Oxford', Part 4: The Church of Reason) >>>>>> > ___ 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
