dmb,
It is not a mistake when in the end you know that these analogies are "not this, not that." --- What do you want from me? Do you know? Marsha On May 15, 2011, at 2:41 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said to dmb: > > > I've submitted dozens of posts, primarily in the 'Reifying Carrots' thread > that offer such explanations from many different perspectives. Do you > understand 'many different perspectives"? > > dmb says: > Yes, but you make the same mistake over and over again. As is usually the > case, you just posted a quote to support your contentions about "reification" > but the quote does NOT support them. Quite the opposite. In fact, you > repeatedly disputed William James by quoting one of the biggest William James > fans in the world. You were, in effect, using James to oppose James. This > shows quite clearly that you are deeply confused. > > The quote you just re-posted for Mark says that creating "discreet entities > [is] useful for manipulating, predicting and controlling" and is > "conventionally indispensable". But reification is the problem that MAY enter > into it. Your own evidence says this process "may impose ad hoc boundaries on > what are actually densely interconnected systems and then grant autonomous > existence to the segments." Now compare that to what I said in the post you > are allegedly responding. > dmb said: > Reification is not a tool. It is a certain kind of mistake, a conceptual > error... when generalizations and abstractions are mistakenly given concrete, > existential status, when a concept is taken as something more than a concept. > ...When they are treated as different kinds of substances or mistaken for > metaphysical categories, you've committed the error known as reification. The > term is used to oppose various kinds of essentialism and Platonism, as well > as SOM. > > What's the difference between "granting autonomous existence" and "given > concrete, existential status"? There is no important difference. Both phrases > express the same idea. And so you are using the quote to dispute what the > quote says. The quote does not support your contention that this error is > inherent to conceptualization. Think about it. How would that work? If there > were no way to conceptualize without reification, how would it be possible to > make a case against it? And yet you're quoting a case against it. The MOQ > makes a case a against it. James made a case against it and so did your > favorite James fan. They are all using concepts to opposed this conceptual > error. If it were an inherent feature of conceptualization, this critique > wouldn't even be conceivable. And yet there they are, right in front of you. > This means that your contention cannot possibly be true. > > It's like saying "words have no particular meaning". If that were actually > true you wouldn't be able to make the claim in the first place, at least not > in way that anyone could ever understand. And so it is with the phrase > "conceptualization reifies". Because that phrase is itself a concept, it > would be inherently erroneous like every other concept. > > Yep. You can bet your bottom dollar that the sun will come up tomorrow and.. > you know the rest. > > > 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
