Dmb, Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?
Marsha On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:48 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
