[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

On Jun 1, 2011, at 2:37 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Please note the statement  "James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his own concept of a field of consciousness" 
> 
> dmb says:
> I'm pretty sure Wallace is wrong on that point. When James first came out against the atomistic theories (In his Psychology book) he said that rivers and streams are the best METAPHORS for consciousness. He also likened it to the flights and perches of birds, to a line of flame burning across an open field, just to name a few. I don't even think it's fair to say that a "field" was his favorite, let alone an exclusive, reified conception. He was quite explicit about these terms being only analogies. 
> 
> James held that continuities and disjunctions are both felt and known in experience and never denied one to the exclusion of the other, so I'd disagree on that point too.
> 
> But I seriously doubt that you have any idea what James, Wallace or I am even talking about here. 

dmb,

I have no idea of yours and James' understanding.  But I do know and agree with Alan Wallace is talking about.  If you disagree, then you disagree;  your opinion is not my problem.   


Marsha 




> 
> 
>> 
>>    "The asymmetry in James's view of mind and matter may be due in part to his advocacy of a "field theory" of consciousness, in contrast to an "atomistic theory," which he vigorously rejects.  I would argue, however, that the nature of consciousness does not intrinsically conform either to a field theory or an atomistic theory.  Rather, different kinds of conscious events become apparent when inspected from the perspective of each of these different conceptual frameworks.  Using James's field theory, one may ascertain an individual, discrete continuum of awareness; and using the atomic theory one may discern within the stream of consciousness discrete moments of awareness and individual, constituent mental factors of those moments.  Thus, while certain features of consciousness may be perceived only within the conceptual framework of a field theory, others may be observed only in terms of an atomistic theory.  This complementarity is reminiscent of the relation between particle and field theories of mass/energy in modern physics.  The crucial point here is that neither conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of pure experience.  James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his own concept of a field of consciousness, and this may have prevented him from determining, even to his own satisfaction, the way in which consciousness does and does not exist.
>> 
>>       (Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness') 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 11:53 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ham said:
>>> Zero or nothingness may be an "abstraction" in relational logic, but not in metaphysical reality.
>>> 
>>> Ron replied:
>>> ESPECIALLY in a Metaphysical construction of reality! it's not experienced! Essentialism all rests on a abstraction. You really can't deny this. ...Do realize that dualism and opposites result from the act of explanation and the use of language; to take them as actual constituants of reality is a reification of those relational concepts of meaning.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> dmb says:
>>> 
>>> I agree with Ron. Ham's key terms are so highly abstract that they don't even refer to anyone's actual experience. The whole system of relations is purely verbal, untestable in experience and unusable in life. This is exactly what James hated most about the rationalistic philosophers, especially the Absolutists. Ham's Essentialism seems to be a matter of moving a few pieces around on some metaphysical chessboard and none of those pieces makes contact with actual experience at any point. The game is confined to those 64 squares and none of the moves makes a difference to anyone or anything. That's vicious abstractionism. That's why reification is a real problem. This is an abuse of concepts and such misuse is to be avoided because it will lead you down a dead-end road, lead you into confusion and isolation and endless arguments about nothing at all. 
>>> 
>>> "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of reality metaphysics is too 'scientific.' Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food."
>>> 
>>> "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."



 
___