[MD] Keep on ...

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --

May I cut in?


> I am sure you are sick of my posts, but I had this article from the
> interent that might explain more of my understanding of reification
> from a Buddhist point-of-view.  Here's a little bit quoted from
> the article and the url:
>
> "To reify is usually defined as mistakenly regarding an abstraction
> as a thing. It is derived from the Latin word res meaning 'thing'.
>
> Reification in Western philosophy means treating an abstract belief
> or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, physical entity.
> In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something
> which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
>
> In Buddhist philosophy the concept of reification goes further.
> Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were
> a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process."

What do you (or the Buddhists) consider a "real thing"?   According to your 
definition, ALL things are "reified".  I suppose this is one way of 
supporting Pirsig's assertion that objects don't exist.  But objects do 
exist for us, Marsha, otherwise we would have a tough time getting fressed, 
making dinner, or paying the bill.  In other words, where there are subjects 
there are also objects.  That's the empirical truth of existence, the 
relational "reality" we all live in.

So, rather than quote Eastern mystics who'll tell you that phenomena are 
intellectualized abstractions or "hypothetical constructs", why not look 
into (Western) epistemology and see  how we arrive at our perception of 
things?  For example, everything we know comes through experience involving 
the five human senses.  Unless you believe that the physical body which 
hosts the sense organs does not exist, we can all it an 'existent'.

To start with, there are three experiential conditions that determine any 
existent's identity -- qualities, difference, and relationship.  By 
necessity, all three conditions are true of all existents and there can be 
no existent of which all three are not true.  We know things by their 
qualities and relations.  Every existent has some quality or combination of 
qualities which is different from every other existent.  And anything that 
exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists.

Now, when you doubt whether something is "real" or not, you are questioning 
the relation of the subjective "knower" to the objective thing or phenomenon 
experienced.  You are asking: Does the subject passively receive the 
qualities and relations it experiences from the object?  Or, are these 
qualities and relations derived from subjective consciousness and actively 
imparted to the experienced object?

The answer will depend on whether (and to what extent) you are an 
objectivist or a subjectivist.  (And that goes for the 'Qualityists', as 
well.)  I have my philosophy and you have yours.  The bottom line is that, 
however we explain or define it, what we experience is as "real" as reality 
ever gets in existence.

Thanks and happy truckin',
Ham