dmb,
I don't ask you to explain your point-of-ovew about the MoQ or anything close. I don't find what you post interesting enough to even consider. Marsha On May 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said to 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. > > > dmb says: > Yea, go ahead a post your "evidence" again. And I will show you once again > that the quotes do NOT support the "expanded Buddhist understanding". Last > time, your own evidence said concepts MAY be reified. Common sense, > conventional thinking is not philosophical. It's practical and the average > guy does not doubt the existence of the traffic light. That kind of common > sense realism or natural essentialism is NOT a problem. Realistic > conceptualizations work quite unproblematically on the conventional level. > Reification becomes a problem when conventional notions are asked to do > philosophical work, when ordinary thoughts and things become metaphysical or > ontological categories. > > Pirsig's attack on Plato's fixed and eternal forms and his attack on > Aristotle's substance are proper attacks on reification, for example. The way > he and James both insist that subjects and objects are concepts rather than > the starting points of reality, for example, is an attack on reification. > > Your incoherent attack on reification is just a foolish. You're oblivious to > the problem where it actually exists and instead use the term to condemn any > and all concepts. Like I said, if you were able to comprehend the meaning of > the term you'd reject Bo's position in a very big way. He has reified the MOQ > and yet you follow him even while you blather on incoherently about > reification. > > You know, the cool thing about Buddhism is that it is more like psychology > than religion. William James thought one particular Buddhist guest speaker at > Harvard was a better psychologist than himself, and told him so after the > talk. There are Buddhist scholars who say that the Buddha was a pragmatist > and a radical empiricist and who say James's work is compatible with Japanese > Zen Buddhism. My point? Zen and the Art doesn't need any Buddhist expansion > or correction, least of all from non-Buddhist, non-scholar like you, because > it's already there. > > Again, I'll remind you that you repeatedly cited an enthusiastic William > James fan to dispute William James. The quotes you post as evidence for your > notion of reification do not support that notion at all. > > What I don't get is WHY you need to believe that the intellect cannot escape > SOM or reification. It's pretty clear that you have some kind of deep > emotional commitment to the belief that intellect is something to killed > rather than cultivated. But why do you NEED to believe that? Is like a sour > grapes thing? You're tired of being told that you have the wrong idea and > that your laboring under a misconception and so rather than do the work it > takes to think things through you simply decided that ideas and conceptions > themselves are inherently bad. You've adopted a virulent form of > anti-intellectualism in order to protect your self-esteem, to get off the > hook and otherwise evade the issues. That's why nobody can ever have anything > like a real conversation with you. > > If I present the evidence, you say it doesn't explain anything or dismiss it > as authoritarian rather than authoritative. (Man, is that dumb!) If I > explain, you ask for evidence. If I use logic, you don't see the point. > Considering the context, that behavior is wildly inappropriate. Words and > ideas are our common currency, the medium of exchange, not the root of all > evil. You're betting that cash is no good and yet cash is all you have to > bet. It's simply incoherent. > > Nobody thinks you're going to be persuaded by this or any other argument. I'm > not really talking to you because there is no talking to you. Ask anyone > who's ever tried. > > > So what happened, eh? Did tragedy follow some kind of intellectual hubris? > Somebody got hurt and you blame thinking itself? A smart person broke your > heart? What? Why do you NEED to believe the intellect is inherently stuck on > a metaphysics and can't escape reification? Why do you NEED to hold thinking > in such contempt? And, considering this attitude, why would you join a > philosophical discussion group in the first place? Isn't that a bit like a > neo-nazi skinhead joining the NAACP? > > >> 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 > > 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
