Hi Marsha, Sometimes what a word means to one can be seen by what antonym one chooses for it. Therefore, I challenge you to present an antonym for reify or any of its derivatives. You may find this difficult since an antonym of such a thing is a reification in itself (if I get your drift about this concept). Therefore unreify or deriefy or areify are nonsense and do not exist.
What you may find, however, is that the antonym of reify is a finger pointing right at Dynamic Quality. Does this help at all with the reify concept? Mark On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > 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." > > > > > > http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/12/reification-in-buddhism-ultimate-and.html > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On May 16, 2011, at 12:51 AM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> >> HI Mark, >> >> I've read the book and enjoyed it very much. I believe the quote I offered >> was by dmb, and not James, and I agree with the quote.. I have not >> misunderstood it, but interpret reification through a more Buddhist >> presentation. For now I'd like to drop the subject. On Thursday I will be >> receiving a houseguest for two weeks, and probably will have little time >> for the MD. Until Thursday I will be quite busy with preparations. >> >> Enjoy the book. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 16, 2011, at 12:23 AM, 118 wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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
