[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[John Carl]

dmb:

That's enough right there. The most basic definition tells us that an
> abstraction is a general idea "APART from concrete realities or specific
> objects". An "independent entity" is a concrete reality or specific object
> and that is exactly what is OPPOSED to an abstraction.
>


John:

That's enough right there indeed, dave.  We could probably go 'round and
'round all day on this one alone, for to my perception you are caught in an
infinite regress with your understanding.

I thought we all agreed here, that the existence of "independent entity" or
"concrete reality" is just an illusory idea given within the context of a
subject/object metaphysics.  The idea that there is some sort of concrete
reality "out there" is exactly what the MoQ opposes.  C'mon dude!  If you're
gonna wear that mantle, you better do better than this!

Abstraction is all we have.


dmb:



> The value of a general idea is it's ability to apply to a wide range of
> concrete realities. It is called a generalization precisely because it is
> NOT a specific instance.
> This is truly unbelievable. I have to explain what dictionaries mean? WTF?
>

John:

Here we go again.  I seem to remember getting flustered a long time ago with
you on the definiton of concept.  I just bowed down to the heir then, but
recently I've been doing a bit more reading and I think you've got some
unexamined issues that need to be brought to light, and that doesn't even
include the psychological ones -  I'm referring to epistemology now.   Even
conceding the point that even false percepts are in some manner "assembled"
from real attributes we have come to know from previous experience, this
falls far short of the claim that every one of our perceptual experiences
has a "real" object of some kind, present in ordinary physical space at the
time of the experience.  It does not make the "evidence of the senses"
somehow incontestable nor does it make the validity of the senses
axiomatic.  The standard to which perceptual judgment answers is the same
standard to which any and all judgments answer: coherence and consistency.
(Quality, if you will)  We do not ordinarily notice that perception has to
meet this standard, because we have already done so much of the processing
and integration involved.  Much of it was done more or less automatically
during our first year of infancy.

dmb:


>
> reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal. make (something
> abstract) more concrete or real : ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from Latin res, re-
> ‘thing’ + -fy .
>
> To reify is to thingify. Abstactions are fine AS abstractions. To reify is
> to mistake an abstraction for an actual thing.
>
>
John:

Sounds to me like you're doing that projection thing again dave.  Where what
you say about others, is what you are thinking yourself.   You are very wise
when we simply substitute  yourself for the aspersions you cast on others.

dmb:


> Seriously, what is wrong with you people? A grown-up that has trouble with
> the dictionary has no business doing metaphysics.
>
>

John:

See?  Works out great with the projection accounted for.


>
> John said:
> Anybody who thinks about anything in any way, IS reifying.  We all do it,
> all the time.  Wallace in that video post Marsha brought to our attention,
> pointed to Quantum physicists who go to all this trouble to understand
> objective reality can't be defined at the office, and then go home and reify
> anyway.
>
> dmb says:
> That's completely ridiculous. The existence of the term "reification" shows
> that the criticism of this error is well established. The fact that
> philosophers warn us about this error shows that it is not inherent to
> thinking itself.


John:

Yes it is, dave.  SOM thinking.  That was the point of my quoting the
video.

dmb:


> If all thinking was inherently an act of reification, a term such as
> reification would be inconceivable. But it's not. It's in all the
> dictionaries and people use it all the time.


John:

Yes they do, dave.  SOM people.

dmb:


> The stuff Marsha quotes is targeting scientific materialism and common
> sense realism but it makes no sense to shoot the MOQ with that same gun. The
> MOQ also targets scientific materialism and common sense realism. The MOQ is
> itself already a warning against exactly the kind of reification that leads
> to materialistic realism.
>
>
John:

I agree.  What surprises me is that you don't seen to quite get it.



>
> John said:
> Once again, you're not being logical. Isn't a concept a thing?  Isn't a
> thing a concept?  What is the difference then, between "concepts" and
> "things"?  Round and round, the merry-go-coaster rolls.
>
> dmb says:
> Everything changes when you say that the things you thought were things are
> really just thoughts. In the MOQ there are no things. Think about that
> thought. But don't mistake it for a thing.
>
>
>
John:  Once again, I agree.  Don't mistake your thoughts about things, for
the things in themselves.  This isn't because of an error about the "things
in themselves".  It's because there's no such thing as "things in
themselves".



> John said:
> What kind of discussions do you want, dave?  The kind where you do all the
> talking and everybody else goes "ooo"  "ahhhh"?  you want nothing but
> cheerleaders on the sideline?  Adrie could use some company, I guess.
> Somebody real might be nice.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Oh, I know. I'm such an insufferable snob. Where do I get the audacity to
> go around demanding that people understand their own words? I'm just so
> picky, picky, picky. My standards are just too high. It's not fair. (Due the
> crying baby) Whaaaahhhh, whaahh, whah.
>
>
John:

More projection.  I ain't crying.  I'm chortling with glee here.  You're the
one plainly going "wahh"

dmb:


> C'mon. Think about it. Unless we are all speaking the same language, how
> can we even begin to have a reasonably intelligent conversation about
> anything. Do I really need to explain the difference between a thought and
> thing to a grown man, for christ's sake? You say stuff that would embarrass
> my 5th grader and then wonder why I fail to respect your awesome I.Q?
>
>
John:

Actually, it's not that awesome.  I'm sure there's much more awesome ones on
this list.  I mentioned that I do qualify as a Mensa member, but just
barely.   If my brain is special at all, I think it's unique in its balance
between romantic and classic styles, but I like the romantic better.  You
can have the high road to yourself.  I said that a long time ago, but you
were off in a snit.  You can have the high road dave, I'll take the low.
And also, I don't want to undermine you or compete with you.  I'd like to
help, honestly.  But you're gonna have to be a bit more open to it or it's
just gonna be a drag.

dmb:

Cheerleaders are fine in a hot tub. In a philosophy forum, they're
> irrelevant.


John:

Tell that one to Adrie.  I already know it.

dmb:


> You're not buying into the popularity thing, remember? You've been saved,
> reformed, born again and now all you care about is intellectual quality. And
> dictionaries.
>
>
Expanded intellectuality, that is.  The kind that appreciates finely crafted
formulations and wit (look it up) and good looking prose that is graphically
ideal.

I also appreciate cheerleaders in hot tubs (if they're of age) and puppies
and presents and dialogue with dmb.  I'm a man with an appreciation for the
varieties of experience.

Yours as usual,

John