Dmb, AGAIN: Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?
Marsha On Jun 7, 2011, at 1:02 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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
