Dmb,
AGAIN: Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?
Marsha
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:24 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Marsha said:
> I asked you the other day to post what you thought was my understanding of
> 'reification.' Of course you didn't. So I'll ask you again, please
> explain my understanding of 'reification.'' Explain my understanding in its
> entirety.
>
> dmb says:
> I just dished up your thoughts on reification and explained the objections.
> You "understanding in its entirety" is incoherent. It is a series of
> contradictions, of mutually exclusive claims.
> 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. You can't say reification is inescapable AND
> also say it is a tendency that may occur. Those are contradictory claims.
> Reification is a conceptual error, one we want to correct because of the
> vital importance and value of concepts or concepts themselves are inescapably
> doomed to reify experience and we ought to kill the intellect because its a
> prison. These are wildly opposed claims and you want to say them both at the
> same time. That's what I mean by calling saying your view is incoherent. For
> the millionth time.
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
