[MD] Reifying carrots, causality and the law of gravity

[John Carl]

Hi dmb,

>
> dmb says:
>
> If all conceptualizations were reifications and if everybody does it, then
> reification is just another word for conceptualization. If reified concepts
> include any and all concepts, then the word "reify" has no meaning.
>
>
John:

I agree completely.  From an MoQ perspective, the word reify has no
meaning.  At least not as a dismissive criticism it doesn't.   Taking our
conceptualizations as real things, is just what we do all the time, because
it pragmatically works, but ultimately when we really dig into the meaning
of the term, we're led to an infinite regress.  For taking any concept as
representing an independent entity outside of our conceptualization is what
SOM is really about.  But that doesn't mean that we just make stuff up in
our heads, either.  Meaning occurs in "the entanglement between" subjective
judgement and objective reality.  If reification was possible, then it'd be
because it would be possible to access objective reality as an independent
entity but somehow our conceptualization failed to do this properly.  All
conceptualization fails to do this completely, thus reification is
ultimately a nonsensical critique.



> Take the law of gravity, for example. The reification of that idea means
> that we mistake the idea for a concrete reality. That does NOT mean that
> gravity is then conceived as something physical or as something made of
> cement. But the law of gravity is reified in the sense that the law is
> considered to be the "real" reality behind all the falling and orbiting
> objects. This is also true of causality. As ideas used to predict what will
> happen in future experience, these are extremely good ideas. But reification
> means believing that these forces really exist, somehow, apart from the
> experiences they describe. That's reification. That's Platonism. That's
> scientific objectivity. And that's NOT how we have to take it.



John:

Right on.  It's not how we have to take it.  Only from the perspective of
SOM does the criticism "reification" make any sense.  In fact, I'd say,
"reification" and "falling into SOM" are synonomous, metaphysically
speaking.




> We can say that such an understanding is an error. And that's how Pirsig
> begins. From ZAMM, page 40:
>
> "What I'm driving at is the notion that before the beginning of the earth,
> before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of
> everything, the law of gravity existed. Sitting there, having no mass of its
> own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone,
> not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere-this law of
> gravity still existed? If that law of gravity existed, I honestly don't know
> what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity
> has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single
> attribute of nonexistence that the law of gravity didn't have. And yet it is
> still 'common sense' to believe that it existed.
> Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find
> yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach
> only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and
> gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes
> sense. And what that means is that the law of gravity exists nowhere except
> in people's heads! It's a ghost! We are all of us very ignorant and
> conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and
> barbaric and superstitious about our own."
>
>

John:

Exactly!  Reification is a criticism we use to denigrate somebody else's
ghosts.   I think you might be finally getting this after all.