Hi Marsha, Thanks for your posts. To be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of what she said he said, all the way down to what James said. Currently I am reading through a biography of William James by R. D. Richardson (2006). This provides context instead of the philosophy of James. It is interesting to read about all the characters involved. If it were written slightly differently it would resemble a novel by Charles Dickens. James did not have to work, so had plenty of time to read all sorts of stuff from Western to Easter philosophies.
Now, about 200 pages in, I am reading what James was writing around 1887. He and Alice had finally agreed to marry and during their honeymoon he writes a short essay that starts his ideas about consciousness. When their son (Henry, of course) was born, his wife moves in with her family and James is not allowed to live with them. He therefore has more time. His writings are rebuttals to other big thinkers at the time. He conceives "The Sentiment of Rationality" which is followed by "Rationality, Activity, and Faith", and begins his voyage outside of rationality as the sole source of consciousness. He speaks of our "Spontaneous Powers", which I interpret as dynamic quality. The Metaphysical Club had pretty much ended at that time after Chauncey Wright, and James was starting on a new path. He is still in his thirties at this time. He seems to align himself with the liberal Platonic tradition (not of The Republic, but of the Timaeus). He references the "emancipating message of primitive Christianity". He abandons philosophy as the search for truth, stating that it doesn't exist. Something we discuss here, and I do my best to explain. As James proclaims, such belief is "an exorcism of all skepticism as the the pertinency of one's natural faculties." James intellectually tries to derive a new form of intellectualism. He is a follower of Emerson, and believes firmly in the NOW. Again something that I have brought up several times in its relationship to dynamic quality. I am not sure what is meant by your reification, and I do not want to misinterpret, so I will not go there. But, dmb may be correct with his quote. I wouldn't put it as harshly as what you (he?) state below. So, context is important. We should know why James said certain things and the overall attitude of his times. He was desperately trying to get a professorship anywhere, and was therefore beholden to some in what he wrote. I wouldn't take dmb's quotes too seriously since they often seem to be placed in an attempt to elevate. I am interested in what others think, not in what they think what others think. There is a lot more than words on a page going on. Cheers, Mark On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:24 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >>>> >>> 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 > 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
