[MD] The reification issue completely misunderstood

[MarshaV]

On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:26 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:33 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Yes, and Buddha claimed to be a common man, first.
>>> 
>>> My question to you is: Taking out who you list below, who is left?
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> An answer:  There is some experience of being awake.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, Buddha was certainly "awake".  He help many others wake up during
> his lifetime.  I think that much of this is relegating static quality
> to the social level of words.
> Mark



Hi Mark,

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean...   


Marsha 







>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:46 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> And yet Marsha says she hates reification and loves Bo.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> I neither hate reification, nor love Bo, as you state it.   I already stated:  Reification represents how the common man and many scientists, academics and even philosophers think.  It evolved as tool to facilitate some kind of betterness.  But it is flawed and of course the MoQ can help rectify the flaw.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, actually, I love all, even you, can you believe it...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___


 
___