[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi dmb and anyone else interested in this discussion.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:54 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Reification is a conceptual error. Reification is the mistake of confusing
> a concept and a thing, of taking an abstraction for an "independent entity".
>
> But Marsha thinks reification is just any kind of conceptualization. In the
> same way that she conflates the intellectual level with the flaw in
> dualistic science, she conflates a conceptual error with conceptualization
> itself. And when you do that, all conceptualizations are erroneous whether
> they have been confused with objective entities or not. When you do that,
> mistaking thoughts for things has to be given another name because
> reification no longer refers to that conceptual error because anybody who
> thinks about anything in any way is reifying.
>

[Mark]
Yes, this is an easy trap to fall into.  A concept can be seen as a static
framework.  It is a useful tool to encourage discussion, but must remain
dynamic.  It is a step in a staircase.

[dmb]
> It's hard to imagine what could be more intellectually paralyzing or how a
> thinker could get more stuck. Again, the conclusions have disastrous
> consequences and it doesn't make any sense in the first place. On top of
> that, this misunderstanding of the nature of reification would keep anyone
> from seeing what radical empiricism does to subjects and objects. Pirsig and
> James are both saying that it is a mistake to believe that subjects and
> objects are "independent entities". They say instead that subjects and
> objects are concepts, not things. As concepts, their fine most of the time
> and in fact we mistake them for concrete realities because they work so well
> AS concepts. They are abstracted from experience and they function in
> experience and using such abstractions successfully is just what we mean by
> intellectual quality, by truth. The problem is assuming that subjects and
> objects are the metaphysical starting points of reality. That's reification.
> That's a conceptual error. An
>  d the idea is to correct that error, not to denigrate or abandon concepts
> as such.
>

[Mark]
I agree.

[dmb]

> All of this raises a question, I think. How many ways can Marsha find to
> hate the intellect? Is there anything that Marsha can't construe as
> anti-intellectualism? And why would anybody with that kind of attitude want
> to hang out in a philosophical discussion group? Isn't that a bit like a
> vegan hanging out at pig roast? If that's how you roll, then isn't this just
> about the last place you'd want to be?
>

[Mark]
I think this points to a misunderstanding of a premise, and perhaps an
attempt to promote a personal view at the expense of another.  There is
nothing wrong with this.  But, in the long run, the attempt should be to
harmonize our understandings in some way.  A vegan can add other dishes to
the table and expand the experience.  It doesn't make sense to force others
not to eat meat.

>
>
>
> >
> > 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
>