[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[MarshaV]

On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:31 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to Ron:
> The delusion is to think that static truths (patterns) are independent.  Static truths (patterns) are ever-changing, inter-dependent, and impermanent.
> 
> Ron replied:
> I thought you maintained that human beings could only function to percieve static truths as independent. Reification is the way the human mind functions. How is this resolved?
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> I don't see how Marsha's self-contradictory position could ever be resolved. I have tried repeatedly to explain that reification is a conceptual error and not the inherent nature of conceptualization. The texts she cites as evidence of her claims make the distinction between concepts and this particular kind of conceptual error. Her own evidence is against her on this.

Marsha:
Yes, it is error, but is the conventional way of thinking.   It is to think that these static value truths (conventional truths) are independent, when in fact they are ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent patterns.  


> dmb:
> But this problem isn't really philosophical and it is only one of many conspicuous contradictions.

Marsha:
You are such a coward to write to Ron rather than me directly.  You often make your comments to a third part rather than person whose comments you are challenging.  


> dmb:
> She uses "static" to mean "ever-changing" even though those two terms are approximately opposite. And when she's not equating opposed terms, she's opposing equal terms. She thinks "analytic thought" is something other than intellect, for example. 

Marsha:
Yes, I define intellectual static patterns of value different than thinking.    


> dmb:
> How do you talk to a person who "thinks" like that? I really don't see how. 

Marsha:
See. You are complaining to Ron rather than confronting me.  It happens often.  How do you explain such a pattern?  





 
___