[MD] The reification issue completely misunderstood

[MarshaV]

On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 12:49 PM, david buchanan wrote: As James and Pirsig both say, there must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality because concepts are static and reality is dynamic. 
> 
> Marsha replied: In the MoQ Textbook, it states a correspondence between static quality and maya (illusion), "but only in the sense that it is illusory to believe that people and the objects of their world are permanent, independent and unchanging." 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> You're barking up the wrong tree. Who are you talking to? Who believes that people and the objects of their world are permanent, independent and unchanging?

Marsha:
There are static quality and Dynamic quality.


> dmb says:
> Did I ever say anything remotely like that?


Marsha:
I didn't say you did.  Did I ever state that "concepts are necessary to act in the world"?   Where?  


> dmb says:
> How is such a belief relevant to the discrepancy between concepts and reality? 

Marsha:
What is a concept?   


> dmb:
> And don't you see the implication of this textbook statement? If "objects" are taken as secondary concepts which are derived from experience rather than independent, changeless entities then the concept is not reified.

Marsha:
For me, reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process."  It is the natural or inborn tendency.


> dmb:
> The concept is not taken as anything more than a concept then there is nothing illusory about it. And the fact that there are such people proves that reification is not inherent to thinking.

Marsha:
And I never said it was inherent to thinking.   No process inherently exists.  


> dmb:
> You quote such people and yet you continue with this hair-brained, logically impossible claim. 

Marsha:
What claim is that?  That you exaggerate and misrepresent my statements?  That your posts are full of logical fallacies?   


> dmb:
> (Not that Marsha will be able to see this, but this is how her argument does NOT add up.)

Marsha:
Wow, an aside.  Are you twirling you mustache?  

> dmb:
> The dictionaries say reification is a conceptual error wherein something abstract is mistaken for something real and concrete.

Marsha:
The expanded Buddhist definition of reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process.  That is the definition that best reflects my experience.   


> dmb:
> Marsha says reification is interdependent with the conceptualization process.

Marsha:
I have suggested that reification is either a part of the conceptualization process, or that there is a interdependency between conceptualization and reification.   


> dmb:
> But the concept and definition of "Reification" is itself a product of the conceptualization process.

Marsha:
Yes, I stated that it was a static/conventional definition.  Yes, I have reified 'reification.'  


> dmb:
> If Marsha's assertion were true, the concept of "reification" would itself be reified and illusory.

Marsha:
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 the MoQ, from its broader perspective, can help rectify the flaw. 



> dmb:
> In other words, she is using words and concepts to assert the idea that words and concepts depend on distortion and falsification.

Marsha:
Where does the "concepts depend on distortion and falsification' come from?  Oh, it's a 'dmb says' bit of blarney.  

> dmb:
> It's absurd. It's logically impossible.

Marsha:
The absurdity is attributing the "distortion and falsification" to me.  

 
 

___