[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

Greetings John,

You are correct.  Alan Wallace's thinking, as reflected in his writing, is 
elegant.  And yes, it is crucial to understand that pure experience is 
free from any 'conceptual framework.'   That is the key, and I hope my 
stating "not this, not that" echos my agreement with that statement.  I do 
try to make it clear that my definitions and statements are propositions 
and not absolute.  

Many Western Buddhist scholars seem to write with a great clarity that 
suggests caring for both the ideas being presented and all potential readers.  
I'll mention a few:  Alan Wallace, Jay Garfield, David Loy, Jan Westerhoff.  
There are others too.  It is a joy to read their books.  


Marsha  




On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:44 PM, John Carl wrote:

> That was a good one, Marsha.  Shows the value in wading through my old
> unreadthreads when we get a stormy day like today and I'm off work.  I like
> the way this guy thinks and expresses himself, but you know that.  Here he
> makes explicit a criticism of James that I've never formulated so rigorously
> myself, but recognize as a problem I've had with him from day one in an
> intuitive way and a reaction against him.  Specifically what caught my
> attention was what the author himself labels "crucial" that "neither
> conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of pure experience".
> 
> This is key!  Thanks for bringing it.
> 
> John
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:34 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> dmb
>> 
>> Please note the statement  "James seems to have fallen into the trap of
>> reifying his own concept of a field of consciousness" :
>> 
>> "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 part
>> icle 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')
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 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



___