Dear Marsha --
May I cut in?
I am sure you are sick of my posts, but I had this article from the interent that might explain more of my understanding of reification from a Buddhist point-of-view. Here's a little bit quoted from the article and the url: "To reify is usually defined as mistakenly regarding an abstraction as a thing. It is derived from the Latin word res meaning 'thing'. Reification in Western philosophy means treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. In Buddhist philosophy the concept of reification goes further. Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process."
What do you (or the Buddhists) consider a "real thing"? According to your definition, ALL things are "reified". I suppose this is one way of supporting Pirsig's assertion that objects don't exist. But objects do exist for us, Marsha, otherwise we would have a tough time getting fressed, making dinner, or paying the bill. In other words, where there are subjects there are also objects. That's the empirical truth of existence, the relational "reality" we all live in.
So, rather than quote Eastern mystics who'll tell you that phenomena are intellectualized abstractions or "hypothetical constructs", why not look into (Western) epistemology and see how we arrive at our perception of things? For example, everything we know comes through experience involving the five human senses. Unless you believe that the physical body which hosts the sense organs does not exist, we can all it an 'existent'.
To start with, there are three experiential conditions that determine any existent's identity -- qualities, difference, and relationship. By necessity, all three conditions are true of all existents and there can be no existent of which all three are not true. We know things by their qualities and relations. Every existent has some quality or combination of qualities which is different from every other existent. And anything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists.
Now, when you doubt whether something is "real" or not, you are questioning the relation of the subjective "knower" to the objective thing or phenomenon experienced. You are asking: Does the subject passively receive the qualities and relations it experiences from the object? Or, are these qualities and relations derived from subjective consciousness and actively imparted to the experienced object?
The answer will depend on whether (and to what extent) you are an objectivist or a subjectivist. (And that goes for the 'Qualityists', as well.) I have my philosophy and you have yours. The bottom line is that, however we explain or define it, what we experience is as "real" as reality ever gets in existence.
Thanks and happy truckin', Ham 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
