Hi Ron, Reification seems to be mentioned as often as change as a topic in many of the Buddhists text I've been reading. I don't insist anybody needs to take this view, but for me it has been very important. I have read there is a difficulty whether your reading or silently talking to yourself. Here's just one paper that mentions the difficulty from a Buddhist point-of-view. Again,I do not insist anybody must agree with its importance but it is worth considering. There are plenty of other papers too. Maybe for we, the wise, on the MD it isn't a problem, but is this a metaphysics for everyman or just about counting dancing angels.
http://www.firedocs.com/carey/asif.html Thanks for your consideration. Marsha http://www.firedocs.com/carey/asif.html On May 17, 2011, at 8:49 AM, X Acto wrote: > Mark said to 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? > > Ron; > Hello Mark, Marsha. > It helps to realize that reification is a form of logic trap. Not the > formation > and use of words and language. > I believe the written word is much more easily suggestive to reification > simply > because it has visual form. But words arent forms, they are instructions of > meaning. > Words arent as meaningfull except when they are linked with other words in a > contextual chain, they all relate to another to compose a greater meaning. > Reducing the meaning of a word to letters, the most general word is a letter > the letter "A" which has several meanings and uses that only may be given > more precise meaning with the context of other letters and words. > > "A" when spoken, is a sound a form?, the spoken sounds connect with > experience, they connect with meaning and value. When an experience has > meaning > it has value and words are complex arrangements of value to be sure, but here > is > where reification emerges out of it in that it starts with certain > intellectual > assumptions > mostly out of the over familierality of the written word. > > For example: > > Ball > > > "Ball" seems like a form at first, the visual of the written word, the > assumption > of general meaning as an isolated object. But,, it really loses it's definite > form apon > > a closer examination. Was it meant as an object? or was it a refference to a > social > function? to sex? now the appearent visual form has moved to a meaning of an > action > or an event and that relates to a personal experience. Can we rightly call > this > reification? > or is it when we concieve of concepts as objects are we really falling for > the > trap of reification > at such a level that we fail to realize it? ___ 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
