[MD] Step One

[118]

Hi David,
I like the post below, except the part where you question another's
understanding.  (I do it all the time).  What is the article you are quoting
from?  I haven't followed this whole string.

I find the paradigm of the absence of inherent existence to be subtle.  The
four noble truths have an eightfold noble path (in some interpretations),
among which are right mindfulness and right concentration.  These impart a
sense of wisdom or intellect, thus the intellect is involved, as is demanded
by Buddhism.

However, intellectually, the absence of inherent existence is purported to
be an inherent existence itself, thus it is subscribed to.  I believe
Buddhists texts also talk about this since it is an intellectual caveat and
requires the acceptance of certain inherent principles, which are Noble
indeed (look up noble if you want).  Thus the lifelong ritual.  I find such
thought to be an oasis for those who seek it, and only Noble in that sense.

Now using logic, the existence of such thought is questionable in itself
since it requires the feeding of such individuals by people that do not hold
such thinking.  It is indeed a luxury, no matter how little you want or
need.  Therefore reaching this oasis requires (is contingent on) the
inherent existence of just the opposite.  Now this is more like Taoism where
such questioning of inherent existence is not present because the Tao does
exist inherently.

Hope that makes some sense.  And don't even try to stump me with semantics,
it has no place in my discussion.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:38 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Marsha said:
> ... Reification decontextualizes. [and] For me decontextualize means
> removing and isolating a process from it's interdependencies to make it an
> object of analysis.
>
> dmb says:
> Your use of these terms is very confusing. In fact, it seems you don't
> really understand what they mean or how they're used. There is a better word
> for the meaning you've assign to "decontextualization", for example. If
> we're talking about ideas, to remove and isolate for the purpose of analysis
> is what we call an "abstraction" or "generalization" or "conceptualization".
> And it's a very handy thing. Abstractions and concepts are not reifications.
> Reification is a fallacy, an error, the mistake of confusing abstract
> concepts with concrete realities. Reification is a matter of confusing
> thoughts and things, of mistaking ideas for actual, ontological realities.
>
> And what does "decontextualize" actually mean? It depends on the context.
> (Mark's link was irrelevant. Different context, different meaning.) Sadly,
> you aren't using "decontextualize" properly even when we consider the
> original context from which you apparently took it.
>
> Prof. B. Alan Wallace offers a Centrist view. "Not only does this view
> reject the notion that the mind is an inherently existent substance, or
> thing, but it similarly denies that physical phenomena as we experience them
> are things in themselves." That means he rejects the assumptions of
> subject-object metaphysics. Like the MOQ, there is no "substantial dualism
> between mind and matter" because "the ways in which we conceive of phenomena
> are inescapably related to our concepts and languages". Like James and
> Pirsig, Wallace "departs from both the substantial dualism of Descartes and
> the substantial monism that seems to be characteristic of modern
> Materialism, or Physicalism". The article continuest...
>
> "...Much is made of this difference between appearances and reality. The
> Madhyamaka view also emphasizes the disparity between appearances and
> reality, but in a radically different way. All the mental and physical
> phenomena that we experience, it declares, appear as if they existed in and
> of themselves, utterly independent of our modes of perception and
> conception. They appear to be things in themselves, but in reality they
> exist as dependently related events. Their dependence is threefold: 1)
> phenomena arise in dependence upon preceding causal influences, 2) they
> exist in dependence upon their own parts and/or attributes, and 3) the
> phenomena that make up the world of our experience are dependent upon our
> verbal and conceptual designation of them.
> This threefold dependence is not intuitively obvious, for it is concealed
> by the appearance of phenomena as being self-sufficient and independent of
> conceptual designation. On the basis of these misleading appearances it is
> quite natural to think of, or conceptually apprehend, phenomena as
> self-defining things in themselves. This tendency is known as reification,
> and according to the Madhyamaka view, this is an inborn delusion that
> provides the basis for a host of mental afflictions. Reification
> decontextualizes. It views phenomena without regard to the causal nexus in
> which they arise, and without regard to the specific means of observation
> and conceptualization by which they are known. The Madhyamaka, or Centrist,
> view is so called because it seeks to avoid the two extremes of reifying
> phenomena on the one hand, and of denying the existence of phenomena on the
> other."
>
>
> And here are some ordinary definitions of the key terms....
>
>
> reify |ˈrēəˌfī|verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] formal, make (something
> abstract) more concrete or real :
>
> 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.
> Note that reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms
> of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended
> metaphorically, but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually
> regarded as a mistake (fallacy). For example, "Justice is blind; the blind
> cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In
> rhetoric, it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used
> correctly or incorrectly.
> Etymology
> From Latin res thing + facere to make, reification can be 'translated' as
> thing-making; the turning of something abstract into a concrete thing or
> object.
>
>
> abstraction |abˈstrak sh ən|noun1 the quality of dealing with ideas rather
> than events • something that exists only as an idea
> 2 freedom from representational qualities in art
> 3 a state of preoccupation
> 4 the process of considering something independently of its associations,
> attributes, or concrete accompaniments
> 5 the process of removing something, esp. water from a river or other
> source
> ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin abstractio(n-), from the verb
> abstrahere ‘draw away’ (see abstract)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>