On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:04 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > >> On Jun 7, 2011, at 12:49 PM, david buchanan wrote: As James and Pirsig both >> say, there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality because >> concepts are static and reality is dynamic. > > Marsha replied: In the MoQ Textbook, it states a correspondence between > static quality and maya (illusion), "but only in the sense that it is > illusory to believe that people and the objects of their world are permanent, > independent and unchanging." > > > dmb says: > You're barking up the wrong tree. Who are you talking to? Who believes that > people and the objects of their world are permanent, independent and > unchanging?
Marsha: There are static quality and Dynamic quality. > dmb says: > Did I ever say anything remotely like that? Marsha: I didn't say you did. Did I ever state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"? Where? > dmb says: > How is such a belief relevant to the discrepancy between concepts and > reality? Marsha: What is a concept? > dmb: > And don't you see the implication of this textbook statement? If "objects" > are taken as secondary concepts which are derived from experience rather than > independent, changeless entities then the concept is not reified. Marsha: For me, reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process." It is the natural or inborn tendency. > dmb: > The concept is not taken as anything more than a concept then there is > nothing illusory about it. And the fact that there are such people proves > that reification is not inherent to thinking. Marsha: And I never said it was inherent to thinking. No process inherently exists. > dmb: > You quote such people and yet you continue with this hair-brained, logically > impossible claim. Marsha: What claim is that? That you exaggerate and misrepresent my statements? That your posts are full of logical fallacies? > dmb: > (Not that Marsha will be able to see this, but this is how her argument does > NOT add up.) Marsha: Wow, an aside. Are you twirling you mustache? > dmb: > The dictionaries say reification is a conceptual error wherein something > abstract is mistaken for something real and concrete. Marsha: The expanded Buddhist definition of reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process. That is the definition that best reflects my experience. > dmb: > Marsha says reification is interdependent with the conceptualization process. Marsha: I have suggested that reification is either a part of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency between conceptualization and reification. > dmb: > But the concept and definition of "Reification" is itself a product of the > conceptualization process. Marsha: Yes, I stated that it was a static/conventional definition. Yes, I have reified 'reification.' > dmb: > If Marsha's assertion were true, the concept of "reification" would itself be > reified and illusory. Marsha: Reification represents how the common man, and many scientists, academics and even philosophers conceptualize. It evolved as a tool to facilitate some kind of betterness. But it is flawed and the MoQ, from its broader perspective, can help rectify the flaw. > dmb: > In other words, she is using words and concepts to assert the idea that words > and concepts depend on distortion and falsification. Marsha: Where does the "concepts depend on distortion and falsification' come from? Oh, it's a 'dmb says' bit of blarney. > dmb: > It's absurd. It's logically impossible. Marsha: The absurdity is attributing the "distortion and falsification" to me. ___ 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
