Hi Ron, Thanks for the below. I read this after I sent a response to Marsha. I may be saying the same thing as you. Cheers, Mark
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:49 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> 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 > 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
