dmb said:
You can't say that reification is "interdependent with the conceptualization
process" or simply "conceptualization reifies" AND also say that concepts are
necessary to act in the world.
Mary replied:
Why not?
dmb says:
Like I already said, you can't make both assertions because they are mutually
exclusive claims. To say that reification is interdependent with the
conceptualization process means that concepts depend on reification, that
concepts need to be reified, that forming an idea necessarily entails the
conceptual error known as reification. That's like saying the man depends on
cancer when in fact getting rid of it is just about all he wants to do. His
life depends on NOT having cancer. And this is the point of identifying
reification as such, to cure it, to cut it out and restore health to the man.
That's what's necessary to act in the world, a healthy concept, free of the
cancer of reification.
The first claim condemns the conceptualization process as inescapably wrong and
inherently misleading. The second claim says concepts are necessary. If you
don't understand why it is incoherent to make both claims, then I really don't
know what to tell you.
Mary said:
The human brain is nothing more than the product of the evolution of Pirsig's
static patterns of value. Static patterns of value interact with one another
in static ways. It would be a leap to expect the static brain to function in a
non-static way, would it not? Conceptualization is no doubt a high quality
STATIC pattern of value. It is a useful and necessary tool for interacting
with other static patterns. It does not follow that it would be necessary for
it to develop transcendence. If it were even a "tendency" of the human mind to
flexibly transcend the static, then DQ would not be undefined. Capisce?
dmb says:
No, I can't make any sense of that. I don't see how evolution or transcendence
has any relevance to my objection. I don't think concepts are supposed to
"transcend" the static, whatever that means. The problem is making
contradictory claims. It's a simple logic problem. You can't say something is
always bad (conceptualization reifies) and also say that same thing is the
highest species of static good (necessary to act in the world). IF you want to
avoid contradicting yourself and and otherwise present a coherent idea on the
topic, then you just can't say both things.
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
