dmb, >From much I've read, reification represents the conventional way of thinking, >and since I accept ''reification' from the expanded Buddhist understanding I >think I will just ignore your posts. This is another of your fly-speck >attempts to discredit the person rather than address the issue. Would you >like me to post more quotes explaining 'reification' from the Buddhist >point-of-view?
Call me a delusional fanatic if you like. Your ad hominem nonsense doesn't mean much to me. It's a low-grade form of rhetoric. Marsha On May 28, 2011, at 9:39 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > John said to Marsha: > ...when you originally flip-flopped on your support for Bo, the reason you > gave was chiefly that he'd been loyal for so long. Then came the > intellectual justification for your emotional reaction. Now I don't > criticize that process, in fact, I think it's honestly the only way we do > things. We always rationalize what we really want emotionally. Which is why > I don't think the 4th level can rightly be termed "intellectual". > > > Marsha replied: > I might have defended Bo because of his loyalty to the MD, but that was not > the reason I came to believe Bo is correct. I was backed into a corner, he > backed me into a corner, and I was struck wordless. I realized that > conceptualization reifies. I didn't know the word then, but I clearly > understood the process. Only later did I stumble across the word 'reify' and > after reading it a number of times I recognized it as the process from which > I couldn’t escape... > > > dmb says: > There is an recent article in Mother Jones about "the science of > self-delsusion". While emotion is a crucial component of the overall > cognitive process, various studies show that people with deep emotional > attachments to a belief or point of view will ignore and/or attack anything > that threatens to undermine that belief. Such a person will dismiss evidence, > deny facts, deny logic and generally do whatever it takes to protect the > delusion that comforts them. Usually, this type of self-deception is found > among political ideologues and religious believers. > > And in some case we even find folks who are willing to defy dictionaries and > encyclopedia articles. > > If reification is an error wherein abstract concepts are mistaken for actual, > concrete realities, AND Bo's position says that the MOQ is reality, then he > has committed that error in a very big way. If Marsha actually had a > realization as to the meaning of "reification" she would not be defending Bo. > She would be using him as an example of what can go wrong when concepts are > reified. > > And if there is no self-delusion at work in maintaining the view assertion > that the intellectual level is equal to subject-object metaphysics, then how > would we explain the fact that they are clinging to that view despite the > author's explicit statements to the contrary? Evidence doesn't get much > clearer or more authoritative than that. What could be more rigid and static > than a point of view that will not bend in the face of such clear and obvious > evidence? > > What's more fun and satisfying than talking to a delusional fanatic? Almost > anything. > > > > 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
