[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

Mark,

You ask a strange question.  'Gravitation' is a word; It  may be the name of a cat, 
dog or horse, or a conceptual theory.  At the very least it participates in a linguistic 
process.  


Marsha 








On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:31 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Is gravitation a process?
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:58 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 11:25 PM, Mary wrote:
>> 
>>> [dmb]
>>> You can't say that reification is "interdependent with the conceptualization
>>> process" or simply "conceptualization reifies" AND also say that concepts
>>> are necessary to act in the world.
>>> 
>>> [Mary]
>>> Why not?
>>> 
>>> The human brain is nothing more than the product of the evolution of
>>> Pirsig's static patterns of value.  Static patterns of value interact with
>>> one another in static ways.  It would be a leap to expect the static brain
>>> to function in a non-static way, would it not?  Conceptualization is no
>>> doubt a high quality STATIC pattern of value.  It is a useful and necessary
>>> tool for interacting with other static patterns.  It does not follow that it
>>> would be necessary for it to develop transcendence.  If it were even a
>>> "tendency" of the human mind to flexibly transcend the static, then DQ would
>>> not be undefined.  Capisce? 
>>> 
>> 
>> HI Mary,
>> 
>> Here is my (conventional/static) definition of static patterns of value:
>> 
>>   Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, 
>>   interdependent, ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects.  
>>   Not things-in-themselves.)  Overlapping, interconnected, 
>>   ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist 
>>   and change within a stable, predictable pattern.   
>> 
>> Here's my (conventional/static) definition of reification:  
>> 
>>   Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon 
>>   as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an 
>>   impermanent process."
>> 
>> Reification represents how the common man, and many scientists, 
>> academics and even philosophers conceptualize.  It evolved as a tool to 
>> facilitate some kind of betterness.  But it is flawed and of course the MoQ 
>> and help rectify the flaw.  I have suggested that reification is either a part 
>> of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency 
>> between conceptualization and reification.   
>> 
>> But, of course, you are correct Mary.  Both 'conceptualization' and  
>> 'reification' are static patterns of value, conventional (relative) truths. 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha  
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 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


 
___