[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Ham Priday]

On Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009 Marsha wrote to Platt:

> Patterns are in flux like everything else.  Patterns are relative to one's
> immediate experience and different "because each person has a
> different static pattern of life history", and both immediate experience
> and history change.

Not that either of you needs a third opinion in this discussion, but in the 
interest of clarification, Marsha is wrestling with one of the most complex 
and controversial issues of philosophy -- the dynamics of epistemology. 
Yesterday she equated 'objectification' with 'reification': "Objectification 
is the process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were 
concrete things or physical objects.  In this sense the term is [a] synonym 
[for] reification."  While this is an intriguing concept, the terms are not 
exactly synonomous.  Wikipedia explains 'reification' as follows:

"Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of 
misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction 
(abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a 
concrete, real event, or physical entity.  In other words, it is the error 
of treating as a 'real thing' something which is not a real thing, but 
merely an idea.  For example: if the phrase 'holds another's affection', is 
taken literally, affection would be reified."

I understand "reifying" to mean applying a metaphor to an abstract precept, 
such as 'mankind', 'nature', 'summer', 'space', 'pattern', or the color 
'yellow'.  Reification, by this definition anyway, is an intellectual 
function.  Quite possibly the term 'Quality' itself, as used by RMP, is a 
reification.  On the other hand, 'objectification' is not an intellectual 
abstraction but the process of identifying "real" (i.e., experienced) 
objects.  In my epistemology objectification (a.k.a. "objectivization") is 
the equivalent of 'experience'.

[Marsha continues]:
> Somewhere RMP states that Quality represents process and events
> rather than entities. Processes and events are about experience rather
> than subjects/objects.

Existence IS process.  So is every event in existence: Life, Growth, 
History, Learning, Culture, Society, Creating, Drama, Dancing, Music, 
Sports, Producing, Marketing, and the rest.  Processes and events are about 
experience because experience is the objectivization of objects and events. 
However, I disagree that there is experience without subjects.  All 
experience is relative to the "experiencer", that is, proprietary to the 
cognizant subject.

[Platt suggests adding Quality as a fifth level]:
> The four levels are fine with me, but my opinion is that a fifth emerging
> Quality level would increase the MoQ's explanatory power.  It's how I
> imagine it, and just a suggestion.
>
> Change?  All patterns come and go, and since dynamic quality is
> unknowable, there is no way to verify whether it changes or doesn't.
> It's probably not a good idea to get caught in your beliefs about change.

>From my point of view, "level" and "pattern" are reified terms for a 
"perceived state or category" of existence.  It is treating intellectualized 
abstractions "as if they were concrete things or physical objects." 
Experience is dynamic; it is the space/time mode of human awareness that 
changes from moment to moment to actualize the process that we call 
existential reality.

I don't know if this helps or hinders Marsha's brave venture into 
epistemology, and it certainly doesn't represent the official MoQ position. 
Nevertheless, this topic fascinates me, and I felt compelled to throw out an 
alternative view for better or worse.  Hopefully you both will find it worth 
considering.

Essentially yours,
Ham