[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

Dmb,

AGAIN:  Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?  


Marsha



On Jun 7, 2011, at 1:02 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Dmb,
> 
> Where did I state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:48 AM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> dmb said:
>> 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 replied:
>> Why not?
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> Like I already said, you can't make both assertions because they are mutually exclusive claims. To say that reification is interdependent with the conceptualization process means that concepts depend on reification, that concepts need to be reified, that forming an idea necessarily entails the conceptual error known as reification. That's like saying the man depends on cancer when in fact getting rid of it is just about all he wants to do. His life depends on NOT having cancer. And this is the point of identifying reification as such, to cure it, to cut it out and restore health to the man. That's what's necessary to act in the world, a healthy concept, free of the cancer of reification.
>> 
>> The first claim condemns the conceptualization process as inescapably wrong and inherently misleading. The second claim says concepts are necessary. If you don't understand why it is incoherent to make both claims, then I really don't know what to tell you. 
>> 
>> Mary said:
>> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> 
>> No, I can't make any sense of that. I don't see how evolution or transcendence has any relevance to my objection. I don't think concepts are supposed to "transcend" the static, whatever that means. The problem is making contradictory claims. It's a simple logic problem. You can't say something is always bad (conceptualization reifies) and also say that same thing is the highest species of static good (necessary to act in the world). IF you want to avoid contradicting yourself and and otherwise present a coherent idea on the topic, then you just can't say both things.
>> 

___